MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2181996287 · doi:10.1177/070674371305801004

Why is Psychiatry Prone to Fads?

2013· review· en· W2181996287 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Joel Paris

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMental Health and Psychiatry
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychiatryPsychological interventionPsychologyMental illnessPsychotherapistMedicineMental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Psychiatry has long been prone to fads. The main reason is that mental illness is poorly understood and can be difficult to treat. Most diagnostic fads have involved the extension of well-known categories into broader spectra. The most prominent treatment fads have involved the overuse of pharmacological interventions and a proliferation of methods for psychotherapy. The best antidote to fads is a commitment to evidence-based psychiatry.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.999
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.239 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicMental Health and PsychiatryFrench-language works237,207