Bibliographic record
Abstract
Educators are part of in-school discussions about student mental health. At times, teachers may suggest that students consult with mental health professionals. Informed by mental health promotion resources, educator referrals to mental health professionals may lack discussion of critical mental health information. Mental health promotion materials do not acknowledge the extensive scholarly critique of mental health premises and practices. Much of this critique is produced within psychiatry, the disciplinary base of mental health. Critical scholarship discusses profound flaws, misinformation, and potential for harm within conventional mental health. Important critical mental health topics include scientific evidence, psychiatric drugs, and psychiatric diagnosis. Access to both critical and conventional mental health scholarship is necessary for students and parents to provide informed consent to mental health intervention. Some interventions commonly take place in the first meeting and therefore, students and parents need access to critical information prior to their first meeting with a mental health professional. Forming a critical mental health primer for teachers, this article goes beyond promotion of critical mental health awareness to call for institutional divestment from mental health premises and practices that cause harm and lack scientific, ethical, and intellectual integrity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".