MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897623369 · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(18)31612-x

The Lancet Commission on global mental health and sustainable development

2018· review· en· W2897623369 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Vikram Patel, Shekhar Saxena, Crick Lund, Graham Thornicroft, Florence Baingana, Paul Bolton, Dan Chisholm, Pamela Y. Collins, Janice L. Cooper, Julian Eaton, Helen Herrman, Mohammad M. Herzallah, Yueqin Huang, Mark J. D. Jordans, Arthur Kleinman, María Elena Medina‐Mora, Ellen Morgan, Unaiza Niaz, Olayinka Omigbodun, Martin Prince, Atıf Rahman, Benedetto Saraceno, Bidyut K. Sarkar, Mary De Silva, Ilina Singh, Dan J. Stein, Charlene Sunkel, Jürgen Unützer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilNational Institutes of HealthGovernment of the United KingdomServierGrand Challenges CanadaH. Lundbeck A/SDepartment for International Development, UK GovernmentNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchDepartment of Health and Social CareWellcome TrustNational Institute of Mental HealthDepartment for International DevelopmentKing's College LondonWorld Bank Group
KeywordsCommissionMental healthSustainable developmentGlobal mental healthGlobal healthPolitical scienceMedicineEnvironmental healthEnvironmental planningPsychiatryGeographyNursingPublic healthLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0080.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.008

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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.337 · 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
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

Citations3,446
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe LancetSame topicMental Health Treatment and AccessFrench-language works237,207