MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

What, With What, and to Whom: The Limits of Psychiatry

2002· article· en· W2135762968 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Eric Ratcliff

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralasian Psychiatry · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMental Health and Psychiatry
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPartenariat Canadien Contre Le Cancer
KeywordsCompetence (human resources)PsychiatryClinical PracticeDichotomyPsychologyMedicineFamily medicineSocial psychologyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To identify some general principles for use in deciding what is psychiatry and what is not. Method: An overview of matters referred to the Clinical Practice Advisory Committee of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. Results: Three domains of psychiatric practice are identified: competence, ethics and performance. A number of quasi-paradoxical dichotomies in the nature of psychiatry have emerged: doctor-specialist, scientist-clinician, humane-commercial. These are not exhaustive. Conclusion: Some useful generalisations can be made about the limits of acceptable psychiatric practice but, within these, there is a need for further investigation of the realities of practice. A pilot study of clinicians' opinions is proposed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.546
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralasian PsychiatrySame topicMental Health and PsychiatryFrench-language works237,207