Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In the past decade, the Internet has rapidly evolved into a mainstream communication and information resource. During this period, health care resources and databases have been developed. This paper reviews the literature on e-mail communication and on-line health care information resources to determine the impact on psychiatry. METHOD: The Medline electronic database and the search engines Altavista and Google were used to review the literature discussing on-line guidelines, clinical trials, and continuing medical education (CME) resources, as well as the literature on Internet usage, e-journals, and e-mail communication. CONCLUSIONS: The Internet has accelerated psychiatrists' access to new research findings and other information pertinent to clinical practice. It has eliminated distance barriers and offered psychiatrists and the general public equal access to scientific articles, clinical trials, and guidelines. The literature shows that the general public is using the Internet to obtain information and, to a lesser extent, to communicate with health care professionals. In terms of health outcomes, the effectiveness of patient on-line access to information is still uncertain, and further research is necessary. Although physicians have embraced on-line journals, further work is required before they embrace on-line CME. The Internet has developed to a point where it is important for psychiatrists to understand the issues and pitfalls in its use, to be able to access the resources available, and to be in a position to mentor patients who want to research their condition further.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".