MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206234597 · doi:10.33920/med-10-2201-11

January 26 — International Day «Let's Talk»

2022· article· en· W4206234597 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
O. A. Rybachok

Bibliographic record

VenueSpravočnik vrača obŝej praktiki (Journal of Family Medicine) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, psychology, and well-being
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcrastinationDay to dayPresent dayHistoryPsychologySocial psychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

January marks the beginning of the new year and the middle of winter, therefore, the holidays this month are celebrated accordingly, for example, in Canada and the United States, Walrus Day is celebrated on January 1 with the organization of traditional swims in ice water, but on January 5, it was proposed to celebrate Fasting Day, obviously, with the purpose of saving the body tired from the festive feasts. On January 14, in some countries, it is customary to celebrate an unusual day — the Day of Combating Procrastination, which in psychology means «constantly putting things off for later», some experts have already dubbed this fairly common feature «the disease of the 21st century». January 16 isWorld SnowDay and January 21 is International Hug Day. Besides, on the last Wednesday of January, concerned people proposed to establish Let's Talk Day, dedicated to the problem of difficult relationships between healthy people and patients with mental disorders. Canada was the initiator of the celebration of this day. Experts suggest that ordinary people protect themselves from mental illness by leading an active lifestyle, but does it always help? Let's try to figure it out in this article.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score0.716

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2140.105

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpravočnik vrača obŝej praktiki (Journal of Family Medicine)Same topicHealth, psychology, and well-beingFrench-language works237,207