MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3215805586 · doi:10.1177/10398562211052887

The Consortium of Australian Academic Psychiatrists for Independent Policy Research and Analysis (CAPIPRA): Aims, model, outputs, and implications for clinical academic advocacy

2021· article· en· W3215805586 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey CL Looi, Stephen Allison, Tarun Bastiampillai, Steve Kisely

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralasian Psychiatry · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthPoliticsMental healthcareState (computer science)Political sciencePublic administrationPublic relationsMedicinePsychologyMedical educationPsychiatryLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: We describe an independent model of clinical academic mental health services research that is able to provide synthesised views for medico-political organisations that are engaged in advocacy for national and state evidence-based policy and planning of mental healthcare. CONCLUSIONS: CAPIPRA focuses on independent research and policy analysis using publicly available datasets on population mental health at national and state/territory levels, published in international and national peer-reviewed journals (>50 papers since 2019). We partner with medico-political organisations in evidence-based advocacy across a wide range of issues.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.528
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.591
GPT teacher head0.701
Teacher spread0.110 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralasian PsychiatrySame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207