MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2747589115 · doi:10.1111/cpsp.12207

Evidence‐based assessment as an integrative model for applying psychological science to guide the voyage of treatment.

2017· article· en· W2747589115 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

VenueClinical Psychology Science and Practice · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological Testing and Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological sciencePsychologyPsychotherapistApplied psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evidence-based assessment (EBA) streamlines literature reviewing and organizing clinical assessment by targeting the vital few topics, “satisficing,” and focusing on three major phases of clinical activity: prediction of diagnoses or other criteria, prescription of treatment or moderating factors, and process measurement. EBA is an organizing framework for applying a dozen steps to guide treatment. Technology is changing clinical assessment by increasing the efficiency and accuracy of scoring and feedback, as well as innovations that make more intensive assessment feasible. Fully implementing EBA suggests changes in training and requires a practice overhaul in exchange for greater efficiency, more accurate decisions, incrementally better outcomes, and increased service accessibility that could enable psychological science to help more people.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.849
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.011
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.702
GPT teacher head0.708
Teacher spread0.006 · 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