MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389035524 · doi:10.1037/amp0001242

A randomized wait-list controlled trial of Men in Mind: Enhancing mental health practitioners’ self-rated clinical competencies to work with men.

2023· article· en· W4389035524 on OpenAlex
Zac E. Seidler, Michael Wilson, Ruben Benakovic, Andrew Mackinnon, John L. Oliffe, John S. Ogrodniczuk, David Kealy, Jesse Owen, Jane Pirkis, Cathrine Mihalopoulos, Long Khanh‐Dao Le, Simon Rice

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

VenueAmerican Psychologist · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Roles and Identity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilAustralian Government
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialMental healthIntervention (counseling)Psychological interventionPsychologyMedicineClinical trialMotivational interviewingPhysical therapyClinical psychologyPsychiatrySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

< .001). Men in Mind was effective at increasing mental health practitioners' self-reported efficacy to work with men, which is potentially a key change mechanism in their ability to improve health outcomes for male clients. A limitation of the trial was the use of a bespoke, self-reported primary outcome, while a strength was the gender-responsive intervention design. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.366 · 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