MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386392779 · doi:10.5770/cgj.26.678

Abstracts from the 2022 Annual Scientific Meeting of the Canadian Academy of Geriatric Psychiatry and Canadian Coalition for Seniors’ Mental Healths

2023· article· en· W4386392779 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Tabitha Carloni

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geriatrics Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare Systems and Public Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHealth CanadaPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsMedicinePsychiatryGeriatric psychiatryGerontologyFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The Canadian Coalition for Seniors Mental Health (CCSMH) was established in 2002 following a large national meeting that focused primarily on how to improve mental health in long-term care homes.There was a consensus that a Canadian Coalition of relevant stakeholders that focused on all aspects of the mental health of older adults could make a difference through education, research and advocacy.Methods: A Steering Committee was formed, made up of representatives from 12 national organizations, including professional associations and groups representing older adults.The Coalition developed as a project of CAGP although it quickly created a separate identity as an interprofessional organization. Results:The Coalition has been successful at obtaining grants from a number of funding agencies including Health Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), CIHR, the Mental Health Commission of Canada, RBC Foundation, the Canadian Standards Association, the Centre for Aging and Brain Health Innovation and others.The Coalition has approximately 3,000 affiliate members.The Coalition's most significant projects and activities will be briefly outlined including the development of multiple National Clinical Guidelines and the creation of knowledge translation products.The ingredients for developing a successful coalition will be described along with the challenges of sustainability and having limited base funding.Conclusions: We will engage the participants in a discussion about the future of the Coalition with the hope of identifying individuals who would like to contribute.Much work lies ahead.After the first 20 successful years the future beckons!

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0950.024

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.282 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geriatrics JournalSame topicHealthcare Systems and Public HealthFrench-language works237,207