Bibliographic record
Abstract
“Mental health issues are huge,” exclaimed a Canadian official in 2008, an assertion that may prove to be one of the greatest understatements of the twenty-first century. In 2001 the World Health Organization (WHO) announced its intention to “raise awareness of mental health issues at the highest level of decision and policy making.” The WHO's aim was “to mark the beginning of a new era in the field of mental health care.” In 2002 former U.S. president George W. Bush created the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. In 2004 (with Bush's endorsement) the Commission recommended extensive screening of every child in the United States for mental disorders, to be followed by widespread medicating of those diagnosed with psychological problems. Europe, too, appeared to be caught up in the quest for mental health. In 2005 the European Union (UN) announced a new and urgent strategy to promote mental health. To the twenty-seven countries of the EU, mental illness rivaled cancer as a deadly threat to public health. In 2006 a Canadian Senate committee issued Out of the Shadows at Last , a report that called for a massive overhaul of national mental health policy aimed at helping people with mental disabilities get the services they need and deserve. The WHO's announcement, EU's strategy, the U.S. president's initiative, and the Canadian report are just some indications that at the beginning of the new century national and international governments on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean seem as dedicated as ever to making mental health one of the most significant policy issues looming over the twenty-first century.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.274 | 0.136 |
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".