All We Need to Fear Is Fear Itself: Overcoming the Internet Resistance of Child Psychiatrists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Internet is revolutionizing health care, and yet health care providers, doctors in particular, are lagging behind health care consumers when it comes to embracing this new technology. Rather than condemn and dismiss this technophobia as childish and short-sighted, we need to understand its multifactorial origin as well as key strategic elements needed to conquer and eliminate it. This article summarizes lessons learned over a decade of using various approaches toward promoting Internet literacy among child psychiatrists in Toronto, Canada. Building and growing Ability OnLine, an online email network for youngsters with disabilities (1990-1995) was infinitely easier than convincing colleagues to learn about Internet health resources, let alone contribute to a departmental web page. By sharing our successes and failures, we hope to contribute to a FAQ of do's and don'ts for other E-literacy champions in Mental Health.
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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".