MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2132066005

Teaching child psychiatry in ethiopia: challenges and rewards.

2008· article· en· W2132066005 on OpenAlexaffabout
John Teshima

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Mental healthChild and adolescent psychiatryMedical educationPsychiatryMedicinePsychologyNursingGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Ethiopia is a country of 81 million people, half of whom are children. The prevalence of psychiatric disorders in children ranges from 3.5-23.2%. However, there are very limited mental health resources in the country, including few psychiatrists. Thus the training of more psychiatrists, including providing them with expertise in child psychiatry, is an imperative. METHOD: The article briefly reviews the development of the Toronto Addis Ababa Psychiatry Project (TAAPP), a collaborative program between the University of Toronto and Addis Ababa University designed to help train psychiatry residents in Ethiopia. The article then focuses on the author's experiences on one recent trip to Ethiopia to provide some of this training. RESULTS: Formal teaching sessions as well as clinical supervision were provided to the Ethiopian residents. Content had to be adapted to be relevant to the Ethiopian context, but teaching approaches did not have to be modified significantly. The Ethiopian residents were very enthusiastic learners and made quick changes to their practices based on the teaching. CONCLUSION: Collaborative programs such as TAAPP may be important mechanisms to improve the training of psychiatrists internationally, especially when there are limited local educational resources.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicMental Health Treatment and Access→French-language works237,207→