Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early psychosis (EP), in which the terms first-episode psychosis or first-break psychosis are also considered, is an area of developing research intensity. Although it is apparent that considerable progress has been made in establishing best practice criteria and protocols for EP in general, the particular issues pertaining to rural areas have not received the same attention. The purpose of the present study was to conduct a systematic review of the literature of early psychosis programmes, initiatives and research in rural areas in order to help establish the best available evidence. The authors conducted a systematic search of major electronic databases, based on the NHMRC hierarchy of evidence, an established scale, for identified early psychosis cross-referenced with multiple rural terms, between the years 1995 and 2005. A total of 637 articles met the initial search criteria; 206 were identified as having primary significance; three dealt specifically with rural areas. There is a paucity of research findings or published literature concerning the specific needs or characteristics of early psychosis practice or service delivery in rural areas. A number of inferences and suggestions for further research, investigations and policy directions are put forward for consideration.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".