MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Digital Heath Interventions in Mental Health

2018· book-chapter· en· W2905497774 on OpenAlex
Aleksandra Stanimirovic

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

VenueAdvances in psychology, mental health, and behavioral studies (APMHBS) book series · 2018
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionWearable computerMental healthDigital healthMental healthcareThe RenaissanceHealth careComputer sciencePsychologyMedicinePolitical scienceNursingPsychotherapistEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Technological renaissance of the last century stimulated the application of digital interventions in the healthcare domain. Digital healthcare interventions (DHIs) could be implemented through smartphone applications (apps), remote monitoring and tracking devices, and wearable computers. Technology is positioned to transform how mental healthcare is delivered and accessed. In fact, remote active and passive monitoring of parameters, such as mood, activity, and sleep, could be integrated with therapeutic interventions. However, the transformation entails combined conscription of science, regulation, and design. Implementation, adoption, and evaluation of DHI present special challenges. This chapter presents brief history of DHIs in mental health and frameworks an evaluation strategy in terms of the appropriate methods required for appraisal of DHIs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.838
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.390 · 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