MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2408786868 · doi:10.1177/070674371506000802

Service Engagement in First-Episode Psychosis: Current Issues and Future Directions

2015· review· en· W2408786868 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Shalini Lal, Ashok Malla

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDisengagement theoryMental healthPsychosisPsychologyContext (archaeology)Intervention (counseling)Service (business)PsychiatryMedicineGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been reported that up to 50% of patients receiving mental health services disengage from treatment, with adolescents and young adults being particularly at high risk. Even in the context of specialized services in youth mental health, such as early intervention programs for psychosis, disengagement rates remain high. There is a need for extensive and innovative efforts to address the issue of service disengagement in first-episode psychosis (FEP). A multi-dimensional understanding of the phenomenon of engagement can help to inform the development of strategies to address this important clinical issue. In our paper, we propose a conceptual framework for understanding service engagement, provide an overview of the issues pertaining to service engagement in FEP, and suggest future directions for research and practice.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.311 · 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
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

Citations107
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207