MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210924322 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511776984

Guide to the Psychiatry of Old Age

2010· book· en· W4210924322 on OpenAlexaff
David Ames, Edmond Chiu, James Lindesay, Kenneth I. Shulman

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2010
Typebook
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealth and Well-being Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpecialtyScope (computer science)PsychiatryPerspective (graphical)Scope of practiceMedicinePopulation ageingReading (process)PsychologyPopulationPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With rapid ageing of the world's population, psychiatry of old age has become a crucial discipline. This succinct guide to the scope and practice of the psychiatry of old age provides an up-to-date summary of existing knowledge, best practice and future challenges for the specialty, from a global perspective. From definitions and demography to epidemiology, aetiology, and principles of assessment, diagnosis and management, each chapter is sharp, clear and practical, enhanced by tables and diagrams for quick assimilation and reference on the ward or in the clinic. As well as the main psychiatric conditions encountered in old age, coverage also includes legal and ethical issues, and the neglected topic of alcohol and drug abuse in the elderly. Written by leading clinicians, teachers and researchers and offering a much-needed international focus, this compact guide is essential reading for practising psychiatrists and geriatricians, as well as trainees, nurses and medical students.

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)0.000
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0870.078

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.256 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations12
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicHealth and Well-being StudiesFrench-language works237,207