Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ulberg R, Johansson P, Marble A, et al. Patient sex as moderator of effects of transference interpretation in a randomized controlled study of dynamic psychotherapy. Can J Psychiatry. 2009;54(2)78–86. It has come to the authors' attention that their article included an error on page 84, regarding Figures 1 and 2. Figure 1 was repeated and Figure 2 was omitted. We are reprinting the missing Figure 2. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry regrets the error and any inconvenience it might have caused. [Figure: see text] GAF: Reliable change = 5.8, functional range > 71 Healy D. Are selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors a risk factor for adolescent suicide? Can J Psychiatry. 2009;54(2):69–71. The author has found errors in his In Debate article. The main error appears in Table 2 on page 70, under “All antidepressants” in the “Suicides” column. The number corresponding to “25 to 64” years of age, incorrectly reported as 6, should be 1. As a result, the “Total” should be changed from 11 to 6. The increase in relative risk reported in the text of the article, right column, line 24, incorrectly reported as “3.09-fold (95% CI 0.68 to 13.9)”, should be replaced with “1.69-fold”. However, in comparing the data in the 2 tables, it is clear that Table 1 indicates a 5-fold higher rate of deaths by suicide than Table 2. According to the author, this can be explained by underreporting to the US Food and Drug Administration, as reflected in Table 2, but also to the Medicine's Agency in the United Kingdom, as shown in Table 1. For instance, the true number of deaths by suicide from placebo controlled trials of paroxetine is 4, rather than the 1 reported to the regulators. This being the case, the relative risk of suicide is likely to be higher than that cited in the article. Therefore, these corrections do not change the substance of the author's argument. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry regrets the error and any inconvenience it might have caused. Jacques C, Ladouceur R, Fournier P-M, et coll. Effet du formulaire de consentement verbal sur le taux de participation à un sondage táláphonique. Rev can psychiatre. Vol 54, n o v 3, 2009, p. 190–198. Les auteurs ont constatá une erreur de l'ordre dans lequel le nom des troisième et quatrième auteurs apparaissait dans leur article. à la page 190, l'ordre fautif se lisait comme suit: «Patricia-Maude Fournier, MPs 3 ; Lucie Baillargeon, MD, MSc 4 ». Le bon ordre devrait ětre: Lucie Baillargeon, MD, MSc 3 ; Patricia-Maude Fournier, MPs 4 . à la page 198, l'ordre fautif se lisait comme suit: « 3 Professionelle de recherche, Centre quábácois d'excellence pour la právention et le traitement du jeu, ácole de psychologie, Universitá Laval, Quábec, Quábec. 4 Professeure titulaire de clinique, Dápartement de mádecine familiale, Universitá Laval, Quábec, Quábec». Le bon ordre devrait ětre: « 3 Professeure titulaire de clinique, Dápartement de mádecine familiale, Universitá Laval, Quábec, Quábec. 4 Professionelle de recherche, Centre quábácois d'excellence pour la právention et le traitement du jeu, ácole de psychologie, Universitá Laval, Quábec, Quábec». Par consáquent, les donnáes bibliographiques subsáquentes de cet article devraient se lire ainsi: Jacques C, Ladouceur R, Baillargeon L, et coll. Effet du formulaire de consentement verbal sur le taux de participation à un sondage táláphonique. Rev can psychiatre. Vol 54, n o 3, 2009, p. 190–198. La Revue canadienne de psychiatrie regrette cette erreur ainsi que tout inconvánient qu'elle a pu causer.
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 | 0.008 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.325 | 0.186 |
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".