MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015162848 · doi:10.1192/bjo.2020.25

A global needs assessment in times of a global crisis: world psychiatry response to the COVID-19 pandemic

2020· article· en· W3015162848 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kenneth R. Kaufman, Eva Petkova, Kamaldeep Bhui, Thomas G. Schulze

Bibliographic record

VenueBJPsych Open · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilNYU Grossman School of MedicineRobert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers, The State University of New JerseyYork UniversityState University of New York Upstate Medical UniversityKing's College LondonQueen Mary University of LondonState University of New York
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Pandemic2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)PsychiatryPsychologyMedicineVirologyOutbreakInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The COVID-19 pandemic has stunned the global community with marked social and psychological ramifications. There are key challenges for psychiatry that require urgent attention to ensure mental health well-being for all - COVID-19-positive patients, healthcare professionals, first responders, people with psychiatric disorders and the general population. This editorial outlines some of these challenges and research questions, and serves as a preliminary framework of what needs to be addressed. Mental healthcare should be an integral component of healthcare policy and practice towards COVID-19. Collaborative efforts from psychiatric organisations and their members are required to maximise appropriate clinical and educational interventions while minimising stigma.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.012
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0110.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.388 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations187
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBJPsych OpenSame topicCOVID-19 and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207