MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996764667 · doi:10.1300/j076v32n04_04

Age, Gender, and Treatment Attendance Among Forensic Psychiatric Outpatients

2001· article· en· W1996764667 on OpenAlexaff
Dianne C. Hadley, John R. Reddon, Robert Donald. Reddick

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Offender Rehabilitation · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsAlberta Hospital Edmonton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttendancePsychiatryPsychologyAbsenteeismImpulsivityMedicineClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The records of 1,185 female and 5,114 male forensic psychiatry outpatients, within the age range of 15-44 years, were used to evaluate absenteeism from treatment in relation to age and gender. Age was divided into the 3 age groups 15-24, 25-34, and 35-44. Females had a significantly higher absentee rate than males in all age groups (p < .05). This gender difference is likely due to varying social roles as well as differential perceptions of treatment relevance. For both males and females, missed appointments declined significantly with age (p < .05). This age effect likely results from the decline in risk-taking and impulsivity with age. Because the efficacy of any treatment lies in a client's continued participation, it is important to address program attendance barriers and commitment to treatment issues. Commitment to treatment can be increased by active follow-up on non-attendance and by providing a positive therapy experience.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Offender RehabilitationSame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207