MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2290066876 · doi:10.1177/0706743715619436

Doubts About the Clinical Effectiveness of Community Treatment Orders

2016· editorial· en· W2290066876 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
John Dawson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2016
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Community treatment orders (CTOs) have largely superseded earlier leave schemes and spread to most (though not all) Canadian provinces since their introduction to Canada, in Saskatchewan, in 1995. Their use may be increasing, possibly due to continuing deinstitutionalization of psychiatric services. The Canadian Psychiatric Association (CPA) has also endorsed their use in a Position Paper, provided, it says, ‘‘specific legal rights and safeguards are in place’’ and a ‘‘comprehensive package of psychiatric and community support services’’ is available. p 1,6 The weight of the evidence for the clinical effectiveness of CTOs has been growing weaker, not stronger, however, in recent years. There is no robust evidence that the mandatory element in a CTO—the requirement to accept outpatient treatment under an order—produces greater clinical benefits for patients than simply offering them the same package of services on a voluntary basis.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.349
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.381 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsFrench-language works237,207