MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102622678 · doi:10.1177/0840470415581230

Use of control interventions in adult in-patient mental health services

2015· review· en· W2102622678 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tina M. Mah, John P. Hirdes, George Heckman, Paul Stolee

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Canadian institutionsResearch Institute for AgingUniversity of WaterlooGrand River Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeclusionMental healthPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)MedicineMental health servicePsychiatryFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the prevalence of Control Intervention (CI) use in adult in-patient psychiatric units/hospitals in Ontario and developed a profile of those patients who had CI use during their admission between April 2006 and March 2010. Control intervention types included mechanical/physical, chair prevents rising, acute control medications, and seclusion. The profiles of patients with control intervention use included an examination of sociodemographic, mental health service use, and mental health clinical characteristics.

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 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)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsFrench-language works237,207