MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2743708249 · doi:10.5014/ajot.2017.71s1-rp303a

Measuring Recovery in Mental Health: Why the Next 100 Years of Occupational Therapy Practice Depends on Metrology and Meaningful Measurement

2017· article· en· W2743708249 on OpenAlexaff
Skye Barbic

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeasure (data warehouse)Mental healthOccupational therapySelection (genetic algorithm)Primary carePsychologyMedicineComputer sciencePsychiatryFamily medicineArtificial intelligenceData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Date Presented 4/1/2017 In the United States and nations across the world, recovery is a priority for health care reform. Despite consensus for this model, little agreement exists about how to measure recovery. New approaches to measure recovery are summarized and strategies for instrument selection presented. Primary Author and Speaker: Skye Barbic

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)0.100
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.189
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.527

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1000.189
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.015
Scholarly communication0.0100.017
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0040.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.467
GPT teacher head0.521
Teacher spread0.054 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicOccupational Therapy Practice and ResearchFrench-language works237,207