MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091219314 · doi:10.12968/ijtr.2008.15.6.29441

Mental health issues in the spotlight

2008· article· en· W2091219314 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jacqui Akhurst

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthQuarter (Canadian coin)ProductivityWork (physics)PsychologyNursingPsychiatryMedicineHistoryEconomic growthEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On 15 May 2008, a debate in the House of Lords highlighted the economic costs of what was termed ‘mental ill health’ in the workplace. Drawing from reports by the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health, Baroness Neuberger highlighted the total per annum costs of employee mental ill health as nearly £26 billion (equivalent to £1 000 per employee in the UK). This fi gure is computed from sickness absence, the costs of staff replacement and the substantive impact of reduced productivity of those present, but unwell, at work. Particular reference was made to people employed by the NHS, where the Baroness spoke of numerous people who had confided in her that they had mental health difficulties but were unable to speak of these to their managers. Furthermore she noted that ‘mental ill health among staff costs the NHS over £1 billion, which is equivalent to a quarter of the entire mental health budget for England’ (House of Lords, 2008).

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0200.022
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0820.011

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.364 · 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Therapy and RehabilitationSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207