MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2581076746

Listening to Context: A Cultural Examination of Indian Women’s Mental Health

2016· article· en· W2581076746 on OpenAlexaff
Nicola Gailits

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Health: Annual Review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthContext (archaeology)Global mental healthDepression (economics)Middle Eastern Mental Health Issues & SyndromesPsychiatryActive listeningPsychologyGlobal healthMedicineGeographyPublic healthMental health lawNursingPsychotherapist
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In India, approximately 6.6% of women have a common mental disorder (CMD). 1 The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that the burden of depression (a type of CMD) is 50% higher in women than men. 2 Considering the high burden of CMDs in women and the fact that India accounts for one third of the world’s poor, 3 Indian women’s mental health is a significant issue presently. This paper will start by exploring the specific case of Indian women’s mental health, and its corresponding social, cultural, and economic factors of influence. It will then proceed to uncover the current debate on incorporating cultural and community level factors when providing mental health treatment in India and across the Global South. As the Global South urgently needs better mental health care, is a universal scale up of Western medicine appropriate?

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.402 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Health: Annual ReviewSame topicMental Health Treatment and AccessFrench-language works237,207