MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015063042 · doi:10.1136/bmj.39037.702211.3a

Predicting mental illness in soldiers

2006· letter· en· W2015063042 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ferhal Utku, Ken Checinski

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2006
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfoundingVolunteerCohortMilitary personnelCohort studyPsychologyDemographyMental illnessMental healthMedicinePsychiatryPolitical scienceSociologyBiologyLawInternal medicineEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How doctors' anonymity in family courts is under threat Gornall is way out of dateEditor-Gornall is embarrassingly out of date in his detailed analysis of the B case (which was dealt with by the family courts nearly three years ago), and its relevance to proposed changes in the law to make the English family court system more transparent.1 Since then, notwithstanding the ever increasingly exaggerated claims from some quarters that opening the family courts would harm children and deter court experts, the courts themselves are acknowledging the need for English family courts to do their business in the more transparent way that courts in Canada, Australia, and of course Scotland have done without apparent difficulty for years.Several High Court judgments have recorded judicial support for more openness to increase public confidence, and Gornall fails to mention that the president and many of his senior judges are in favour of change in this direction.In a landmark case which was decided on 3 November, Munby J agreed that an ongoing case where parents dispute expert evidence that they injured their child should be open to the media.The local authority concerned issued a "position statement" to the press and the reporting in the Times, Guardian, and the Mail on Sunday set out both sides' cases, as did the broadcasting media.A BBC "Real Story" programme on the case allowed a senior official from the local authority ample time to put their case.No vilification of any experts involved was reported.It is likely that more judges will follow Munby J's example and more public interest cases will be opened to the media pending any change in the law.Will the skies fall in?I doubt it, but your readers can judge for themselves.Hopefully they will understand that in complex childcare cases where expert evidence may be tenuous and the stakes for children are very high, public debate can stimulate awareness of the problems faced by all professionals involved in child protection.It's difficult getting the balance right, but doing it in secret doesn't help.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207