Adult Needs and Strengths Assessment–Abbreviated Referral Version to Specify Psychiatric Care Needed for Incoming Patients: Exploratory Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examined the Adult Needs and Strengths Assessment-Abbreviated Referral Version ratings for a group of 272 incoming psychiatric patients over a 2-yr. period to assess whether the rating scale was useful in predicting clinical placement for psychiatric treatment. Participants were patients (125 women) admitted to Regional Mental Health Care, St. Thomas, Canada between April 2004 and June 2006. Most participants were Euro-Canadian and ranged in age from 16 to 87 years. Clinical cutoff scores were established using observed mean differences in the patients' total scores and are expected to help guide psychiatric triage and longer term rehabilitation placement decisions. A canonical discriminant function analysis showed 85.9% of original level of care placements were correctly classified. The rating scale is a valid and reliable tool to specify level of psychiatric care needed for adults with mental disorders.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it