MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The first episode of psychosis: the experience of relatives

2003· article· en· W2041400097 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Psychiatrica Scandinavica · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily Caregiving in Mental Illness
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychiatryPsychosisPsychologyDistressDepression (economics)Intervention (counseling)Psychological distressClinical psychologyQuality of life (healthcare)Major depressive episodeAnxietyCognitionPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to determine the extent of and the correlates of the distress and impact of care families of patients with first episode psychosis were experiencing when they first came for treatment. METHOD: Subjects were 238 individuals who had presented with a first episode of psychosis and their family members. Family members were assessed with the Psychological General Well-Being Scale, and the Experience of Caregiving Inventory. Patient data included assessment of positive and negative symptoms, depression, quality of life, and substance use. RESULTS: Family members of these first-episode patients were experiencing distress and difficulties. It was the family's appraisal of the impact of the illness that was associated with their psychological well-being. CONCLUSION: As the majority of these first episode families are keen to be involved early and have engaged in an intervention programme, the next step should be an evaluation of their involvement to determine if it is effective.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.185
Threshold uncertainty score0.559

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.284 · 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