MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A PRIMARY MENTAL HEALTH‐CARE MODEL FOR RURAL AUSTRALIA: OUTCOMES FOR DOCTORS AND THE COMMUNITY

2000· article· en· W2034098273 on OpenAlexaff
Helen Malcolm

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Rural Health · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsEastern Shore Memorial Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStigma (botany)Mental healthMental illnessRural communityIsolation (microbiology)Primary careMedicineDepression (economics)NursingRural areaPsychiatryFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To address the high rate of depression and suicide in rural Australia requires a multifaceted approach to educate the community, improve the skills of health workers and provide user-friendly patient counselling. The present paper describes a model that covers each of these aspects and details the outcomes with respect to the doctors and the community. Improved awareness in the community of mental illness and the availability of treatment, decreasing the stigma of such a diagnosis, and increasing the skills and reducing the isolation of doctors in rural areas who treat mental illness were all positive benefits from this cost-effective way of providing mental health care in a primary setting. The adoption of this model in all primary care settings is advocated.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.405
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.378 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations16
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Journal of Rural HealthSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207