MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Políticas e práticas em saúde mental: as evidências em questão

2013· article· pt· W2113436842 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

VenueCiência & Saúde Coletiva · 2013
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Nursing, Elderly Care
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthPsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper analyzes some current questions related to the choice of evidence in order to provide guidelines for public policy and practices in mental health care. It starts with a critical reflection on the categories of evidence proposed by Evidence-Based Medicine, and also the concept of qualitative evidence. The issue is analyzed specifically in relation to mental health care users and their demands to have services organized in a way that incorporates their perceptions and values, and to the Psychiatric Reform field proper firmly grounded in ethical and political precepts.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.076

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.349 · 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