Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims and method To develop a standardised clinical information form which helps health professionals provide clear and relevant information about individuals who believe mental disorders affect their ability to repay debt and have consented to creditor organisations or money advisors approaching professionals for evidence. The six-question form was evaluated by three stakeholder groups. Results Overall, 35 responses were received from creditors/money advisors, 28 from mental health professionals and 29 from service users/carers. All questions scored acceptable levels of clarity and three questions scored acceptable relevance levels. Qualitative data were used to revise questions on the basis of concerns expressed by stakeholders about sharing diagnostic data, providing prognoses, and the risk of creditor misunderstanding. Clinical implications The form is likely to be an acceptable standardised means by which health professionals can elicit information on debt from individuals with mental health problems, for use by creditor organisations or money advisors. The results of a pilot study are awaited.
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 | 0.040 | 0.154 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.063 | 0.013 |
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".