MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2472797563 · doi:10.1080/13651501.2016.1197275

Standards of care for obsessive–compulsive disorder centres

2016· article· en· W2472797563 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health CareSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonMcMaster University
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsNeuropsychopharmacologyObsessive compulsivePsychiatryAnxietyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, many assessment and care units for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) have been set up in order to detect, diagnose and to properly manage this complex disorder, but there is no consensus regarding the key functions that these units should perform. The International College of Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders (ICOCS) together with the Obsessive Compulsive and Related Disorders Network (OCRN) of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) and the Anxiety and Obsessive Compulsive Disorders Section of the World Psychiaric Association (WPA) has developed a standards of care programme for OCD centres. The goals of this collaborative initiative are promoting basic standards, improving the quality of clinical care and enhance the validity and reliability of research results provided by different facilities and countries.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.360
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.426 · 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