What's in a Name? It's Time to Reconsider the Name of the Academy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This name change will match the organization's goals to enhance its future mandate, scope and reach, to include youth in its mandate while consolidating its existing mandate. There is an ethical and moral imperative for the Academy to indicate strong leadership as an organization to support the needs of youth mental health. The Academy can achieve this by facilitating greater continuing professional development and the sharing of research, scholarship, education and advocacy. Key reasons to support a name change are reviewed in this article and include the contextual history of CACAP and the idea of a name change; the epidemiology of mental health concerns in youth; the need for youth specific services within a biopsychosocial understanding; a focus on development and its importance for youth engagement and transitions as a topic of training, curriculum and service design. Finally, potential perceived threats or concerns that may exist are explored and argued as unwarranted. CACAP's vision to include youth is an act of true leadership for all engaged in mental health in Canada, and will serve as a model for other global psychiatric organizations, by fostering collaboration, partnership, curiosity and a greater understanding of colleagues' perspectives within both the child and adult mental health communities.
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 | 0.014 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.008 |
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".