MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970280180 · doi:10.1007/s10488-019-00970-x

Correction to: The Association Between Clinician and Perceived Organizational Factors with Early Fidelity to Cognitive Processing Therapy for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in a Randomized Controlled Implementation Trial

2019· erratum· en· W2970280180 on OpenAlexaff
Iris Sijercic, Jeanine E. M. Lane, Cassidy A. Gutner, Candice M. Monson, Shannon Wiltsey Stirman

Bibliographic record

VenueAdministration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research · 2019
Typeerratum
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternet portalFidelityPosttraumatic stressPsychologyRandomized controlled trialCognitionCognitive processing therapyAssociation (psychology)Cognitive behavioral therapyAcceptance and commitment therapyClinical psychologyThe InternetPsychotherapistComputer sciencePsychiatryMedicineWorld Wide WebIntervention (counseling)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article "The Association Between Clinician and Perceived Organizational Factors with Early Fidelity to Cognitive Processing Therapy for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in a Randomized Controlled Implementation Trial", written by Iris Sijercic, Jeanine E. M. Lane, Cassidy A. Gutner, Candice M. Monson and Shannon Wiltsey Stirman, was originally published electronically on the publisher's internet portal (currently SpringerLink) on 28 August 2019 with open access. With the author(s)' decision to step back from Open Choice, the copyright of the article changed on 30 August 2019 to © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019 and the article is forthwith distributed under the terms of copyright.

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)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.349
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.349
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0100.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1010.034

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 head0.189
GPT teacher head0.628
Teacher spread0.439 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdministration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services ResearchSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207