MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240883798 · doi:10.1211/pj.2019.20206034

What could UK pharmacy teams learn about suicide prevention from North America?

2019· article· en· W4240883798 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmaceutical journal/˜The œpharmaceutical journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacyMedicineFamily medicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From the perspective of their clinical and holistic role, and restriction of access to means, there are opportunities to involve pharmacy teams in suicide prevention. This article examines the published evidence-base and the success of ongoing programmes and initiatives in the United States and Canada to produce a set of recommendations for the benefit of UK practice on the opportunities community pharmacy teams have to raise awareness and help prevent suicide and self-harm.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.376 · 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
GenreCommentary

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmaceutical journal/˜The œpharmaceutical journalSame topicMental Health Treatment and AccessFrench-language works237,207