Bibliographic record
Abstract
These are indeed "interesting times" to be working in the mental health field.In Canada, as we move through the second decade of the twenty-first century, we have seen the locus of treatment shift from institutions to the community, as the "asylums" -the provincial psychiatric hospitals -downsize and finally close.We have also seen a Canadian Senate report on mental health reform, Out of the Shadows at Last, give rise to the Mental Health Commission of Canada, a federal advisory body whose mission is "to promote mental health in Canada, and work with stakeholders to change the attitudes of Canadians toward mental health problems, and to improve services and support." 1 We have seen what is called the recovery vision being written about extensively, and its principles adopted by the Mental Health Commission as the basis for a more positive, holistic approach to mental health care, one that moves beyond what has been seen as the narrow confines of the "medical model."We have seen better mental health housing and employment models developed, with persons with serious mental disorders now employed within health authorities as peer workers, committee members, and program leaders.However, despite these promising developments, problems have persisted.Persons with serious mental disorders are overrepresented among the homeless and in the criminal justice system.Many are not in treatment.Stigma -discrimination from the general public -does not seem to be diminishing.A Canadian Psychiatric Association position paper concludes that: "The promise of deinstitutionalization has not been realized.Hospital bed closures have been too rapid and too extensive.Community resources remain underfunded and limited.Fragmentation in the health care system has meant that no one has taken responsibility for the care of one of the most disadvantaged and marginalized populations" (Chaimowitz 2012, 5).Whether or not this statement is completely accurate, what is noteworthy is that it was written
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.475 | 0.247 |
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".