MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106293817 · doi:10.1177/070674370304800609

Anxiety-Related Visits to Ontario Physicians following September 11, 2001

2003· article· en· W2106293817 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Peter C. Austin, Muhammad Mamdani, Benjamin T.B. Chan, Elizabeth Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnxietyMedicineAutoregressive integrated moving averageMental healthPsychiatryTerrorismPopulationFamily medicinePublic healthAnxiety disorderOccupational safety and healthEnvironmental healthNursingTime series

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the climate of increased anxiety following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent anthrax cases led to increased anxiety-related physician visits. METHOD: We undertook a retrospective, population-based study of all Ontario residents. We identified physician visits using Ontario's universal health care insurance program. Interventional autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) time series models were used to examine the impact of the terrorist attacks and anthrax infections on the rate of anxiety-related physician visits. RESULTS: Neither the terrorist attacks of September 11 (P > or = 0.40) nor the anthrax infections in October and November (P > or = 0.14) had a statistically significant impact on the rate of anxiety-related visits to physicians. CONCLUSIONS: The climate of heightened anxiety did not result in increased demand for mental health services.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.268
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicDisaster Response and ManagementFrench-language works237,207