Commentary: Time to Improve Access to Psychotherapies – A Family Medicine Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COVID pandemic - despite the dire economic and personal toll on all Canadians - is helping us move forward. It bears light on the most vulnerable. Indeed, it has aggravated the mental health of those with such disorders as anxiety or depression and revealed the precarity of our mental well-being. The health system, and most particularly our primary care system, is overwhelmed and its capacity to answer to the mental healthcare of Canadians is put to the test. It is, therefore, time for family physicians to be able to find support in various ways and means to answer the needs of their patients. This support may be through public coverage to psychotherapies, which has been proven effective in Australia and the UK since the last decade, or open access to various validated web-based tools offering cognitive behavioural therapies for the most common mental health disorders in both official languages.
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 | 0.012 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.095 | 0.063 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.009 |
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".