MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157454158 · doi:10.3399/bjgp14x681445

Specialist discharge, child psychiatry, PIMs, and Facebook

2014· article· en· W2157454158 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ahmed Rashid

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of General Practice · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicChild and Adolescent Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChild and adolescent psychiatryPsychiatryMedical emergencyWorld Wide WebComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Specialist discharge, child psychiatry, PIMs, and FacebookSpecialist discharge.Type 2 diabetes takes up much NHS funding and it remains an important condition in both primary and secondary care.One of the important transition points in the health system is when patients are discharged from hospital clinics back to their GP.An article in the Canadian Journal of Diabetes describes an interview study, which sought to elucidate patients' experiences of the discharge process from specialist clinics to primary care. 1 The participants had assumed, at the time of initial referral, that they would receive diabetic care from the hospital indefinitely and, generally, the specialist care had met or exceeded their expectations.However participants were not informed, were unclear, or made their own assumptions about the rationale for discharge.The few patients who understood the rationale spoke positively about their disease being 'back in control'.The authors suggest clinicians should psychologically prepare patients for discharge from the initial referral, informing them of the rationale for discharge and discuss concrete plans for primary care follow-up.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0820.012

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.347 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of General PracticeSame topicChild and Adolescent HealthFrench-language works237,207