MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2788043454 · doi:10.1192/bjo.2017.9

Achieving better health for people with intellectual disability: the power of policy

2018· editorial· en· W2788043454 on OpenAlexaff
Rory Sheehan, Yona Lunsky, Angela Hassiotis

Bibliographic record

VenueBJPsych Open · 2018
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDown syndrome and intellectual disability research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsDeclarationIntellectual disabilityPsychological interventionMental healthStakeholderPsychologyHealth carePublic relationsPsychiatryPolitical scienceNursingMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

People with intellectual disability have high mental and physical healthcare needs, which must be addressed on individual, local and national levels. Policy interventions informed by research and stakeholder views and extending beyond a focus on health are needed to reduce inequities in this group. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: None.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0230.039
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.371 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBJPsych OpenSame topicDown syndrome and intellectual disability researchFrench-language works237,207