MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116352333 · doi:10.1136/medethics-2013-101410

The placebo effect in psychiatry: problem or solution?

2013· article· en· W2116352333 on OpenAlexaff
Susan Huculak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Ethics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPain Management and Placebo Effect
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlaceboViewpointsPerspective (graphical)Placebo responsePsychiatryPsychotherapistPsychologyClinical trialWork (physics)Alternative medicineMedicineComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This opinion piece aims to situate the placebo effect within the field of psychiatric treatment. To accomplish this, the placebo is explored at the centre of an often heated debate between three discrete perspectives: the clinical trial researcher, the placebo researcher and the clinician. Each occupational perspective has its own vested interests and practical concerns that drive how the placebo concepts are negotiated and applied. It is argued that because the trial and placebo researchers typically represent opposing viewpoints, clinicians are generally uncomfortable or even baffled by placebo concepts, and this three-way tension has crucial implications for the field's progress.

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)0.042
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0420.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.004
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.313 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical EthicsSame topicPain Management and Placebo EffectFrench-language works237,207