Bibliographic record
Abstract
The field of psychiatry is experiencing great excitement at this time, much as it was 100 years ago. Current excitement is rooted in the greatly strengthened therapeutics, new models for understanding, and an exponential increase in knowledge of brain function as well as in the opportunity to revise health care delivery. While public expectations of professionals have generally fallen, the role of the healer, which is at the heart of psychiatric practice, has remained high in public regard. Psychiatry has also had to develop new relationships with an active consumer movement. Consumers now appropriately expect to be part of the planning, governance, and evaluation of care. Patients are questioning the research agenda and demand a role in determining the conduct of investigations. This active consumer movement is playing an important role in destigmatizing mental illnesses. Newer, nonmoralistic theories about mental illness and the profession's emphasis on the public trust have also played an important role. The increasing closeness of psychiatry to the rest of medicine has had a greatly beneficial impact, not only on stigma but also on diagnosis and treatment. Care must be taken, however, to see that diagnosis does not become a means to avoiding understanding of people. A welcome recent change has been the reunion between psychiatry and the addictions. This reunion has been facilitated by the development of multifactorial models of care in the mental health field and harm-reduction strategies in the addictions. This bodes well for more integrated treatment in the coming years. The strong psychiatric treatments that are now available and those on the horizon also auger well for an exciting period in our field. The excitement is enhanced by recognizing the multiple approaches to care that have been demonstrated to be effective and the need for great investment in research in this country and by developing new partnerships between the profession and public.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.013 |
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".