MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046484254 · doi:10.1055/s-0031-1277771

Recorded versus live social contact interventions to reduce stigma: randomised controlled trial

2011· article· en· W2046484254 on OpenAlex
Adrienne van Nieuwenhuizen, Azaad Kassam, Ian Norman, Clare Flach, Anisha Lazarus, Paul McCrone, Graham Thornicroft

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

VenuePsychiatrische Praxis · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsMental Health Commission of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionSocial contactMental healthStigma (botany)Social stigmaIntervention (counseling)PsychologyMedicineSocial mediaPsychiatrySocial psychologyFamily medicineComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/Objectives: Social contact is known to reduce stigma and social contact-based interventions are being increasingly used in anti-stigma programmes in mental health. Recorded interventions, such as audiovisual DVDs, may act as an indirect form of social contact and may have practical and cost advantages, but little is known about their effectiveness. To compare the effectiveness of a DVD and a live mental health service user intervention and a lecture control, in reducing stigma. We hypothesised that: (i) there will be no difference between the DVD (indirect social contact with people affected by mental illness) and live (direct social contact) delivery modes; and (ii) the interventions with some form of social contact (DVD or live) will be more effective than a control with no social contact (lecture).

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.306 · 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