MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394716036 · doi:10.1037/ser0000860

Remote mental health first aid training for correctional officers: A pilot study.

2024· article· en· W4394716036 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 · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Aging
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthReferralMedicineIntervention (counseling)Focus groupTest (biology)DistressPsychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatryFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

: 4.30, range 1-20) people incarcerated for mental health services. The reasons for referral included: "suicidal thoughts," "experiencing anxiety over being incarcerated during COVID," and "considering self-harm." A phenomenological approach was used to analyze the focus group meeting. The themes identified were: (a) COs experience with MHFA training was viewed positively (facilitators); (b) there is a need to improve mental wellness in correctional settings (barriers); and (c) mental health referral process for incarcerated individuals needs enhancement when implementing MHFA (barriers). MHFA training for COs is necessary to equip COs with the skills to safely support and refer incarcerated people experiencing a mental health crisis. (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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.294 · 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