MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066008595 · doi:10.1080/14999013.2011.577137

Forensic Case Formulation

2011· article· en· W2066008595 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

VenueInternational Journal of Forensic Mental Health · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNomothetic and idiographicMental healthProcess (computing)PsychologyForensic scienceComputer scienceEngineering ethicsManagement sciencePsychiatryMedicineEngineeringSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Formulation is the process or product of gathering and integrating diverse information to develop a concise account of the nature and etiology of the problems affecting a person's mental health to guide idiographic treatment design and other decision-making. Formulation is a core competency in mental health practice, including forensic mental health; however, there is no agreement concerning the details of how it should be done or how to evaluate it, either generally or more specifically with respect to forensic mental health. The purpose of this paper is to raise specific issues in the practice and evaluation of forensic case formulation, and so enhance the profile of this important area of work. In this paper, we (1) define case formulation and describe its key features, (2) specify criteria for evaluating case formulation, and (3) address challenges in forensic practice, with suggestions for advancing practice through research. We conclude with a proposed research agenda that we hope will encourage and promote activity in this important area.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.729
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.340 · 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