MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038588515 · doi:10.1177/1073191106290559

The Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START)

2006· article· en· W2038588515 on OpenAlexaff
Tonia L. Nicholls, Johann Brink, Sarah L. Desmarais, Christopher D. Webster, Mary‐Lou Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueAssessment · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Mental Health & Substance Use ServicesSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyTerm (time)Risk assessmentApplied psychologyComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new assessment scheme--the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START)--presents a workable method for assessing risks to self and others encountered in mentally and personality disordered clients. This study aimed to demonstrate (a) prevalence and severity of risk behaviors measured by the START, (b) psychometric properties of START, (c) similarities and differences in START scores across different mental health professionals, and (d) concurrent validity of START with diverse negative outcomes. Treatment team members completed the 20-item, dynamically focused START for 137 forensic psychiatric inpatients. Prevalence and severity of START risk domains were measured for 51 patients detained in the hospital for 1 year. Results revealed high rates of generally low-level adverse events. With some exceptions, START scores were meaningfully associated with outcomes measured by a modified Overt Aggression Scale.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.344 · 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
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

Citations184
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAssessmentSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207