The quality of life construct in bipolar disorder research and practice: past, present, and possible futures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Murray G, Michalak EE. The quality of life construct in bipolar disorder research and practice: past, present, and possible futures. Bipolar Disord 2012: 14: 793–796. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S.Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. The quality of life (QoL) construct is becoming more prominent in bipolar disorder (BD) research and practice. Uptake of the construct parallels an earlier trend in schizophrenia research, and coincides with growing interest in psychosocial components of BD’s aetiology, phenomenology, and treatment. We argue that, although QoL and symptom measures derive from competing paradigms in mental health (the biopsychosocial and medical model, respectively), they are best seen as complementary. This pluralistic stance is clinically appropriate, and generates important questions for future research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.107 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".