MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3175747260 · doi:10.1192/bjp.2021.94

Involuntary isolation: interpreting mental health legislation during the COVID-19 pandemic

2021· editorial· en· W3175747260 on OpenAlexaff
Saadia Sediqzadah, Lwam Ghebrehariat, Kristen Weersink, David N. Fisman, Kendra A. Naidoo

Bibliographic record

VenueThe British Journal of Psychiatry · 2021
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicMental healthCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)LegislationIntersection (aeronautics)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Isolation (microbiology)Mental illnessInterpretation (philosophy)PsychiatryPsychologyMedicinePolitical scienceVirologyLawDiseaseOutbreakInfectious disease (medical specialty)GeographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic poses new and unprecedented challenges to the interpretation of mental health law. The authors present pragmatic and ethical considerations in the psychiatric safety assessment at the intersection of COVID-19 and severe mental illness.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe British Journal of PsychiatrySame topicHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsFrench-language works237,207