MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321611334 · doi:10.1037/ser0000753

Depression screening perceptions and practices in a primary care clinic: A mixed-methods study.

2023· article· en· W4321611334 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Services · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
FundersIrving Medical Center, Columbia University
KeywordsPsycINFOMotivational interviewingMedicineMEDLINECompetence (human resources)Clinical psychologyQualitative researchBest practiceSpecialtyFamily medicinePsychologyPsychiatryPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

< .01). Qualitative data analysis revealed that screening may be conducted on a case-by-case basis or deferred based on perception of clinical relevance and time constraints. Finally, participants endorsed multiple screening-related questions and concerns about administration, psychometrics, and overarching screening goals. To improve implementation of universal depression screening, goals of depression screening need to be clearly explained. Screening workflows require optimization balancing employees' feedback and best practice recommendations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.306
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.555
Teacher spread0.423 · 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