MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2752528287 · doi:10.1176/appi.ps.68905r

Suggesting a Medical-Psychiatric Cohort for ACT Treatment: In Reply

2017· letter· en· W2752528287 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Erik R. Vanderlip

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatric Services · 2017
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAssertive community treatmentCohortPopulationPsychiatryProxy (statistics)MedicineHarmPsychologyMental illnessMental healthSocial psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

because of suffering related to a mental disorder involves active intervention to end a life that would otherwise continue.That is not a small difference, legally or morally.For the reasons suggested in the column, including the possibility that physician-assisted death would serve as a substitute for ongoing commitment to patients with difficultto-treat disorders, it would be most unfortunate for the United States and Canada to follow in the footsteps of those European countries that have legalized that option.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0720.067
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.006

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychiatric ServicesSame topicMental Health Treatment and AccessFrench-language works237,207