Bibliographic record
Abstract
don't trust you.Any of you."The teenaged patient said as tears rolled down her cheeks and she hung her head down, refusing to make eye contact."I bet you don't believe me, and you don't understand."We were in a conference room with her mental health team including the attending psychiatrist, a nurse, a social worker, a psychologist, and me, the psychiatry resident who was interviewing the young woman just 10 years younger than me.She had recently escaped a severely abusive situation prior to being admitted.Her post-traumatic stress symptoms were visible for all to see, and the entire team's hearts bled for her.We had often discussed her with pained concern given the severity of her background and her presentation, and we wondered how we could connect with her and make her feel safe, supported, and welcomed.I have been interested in the mind since I was a child.People behaved in ways I didn't understand in my abusive home, and it frightened and confused me.In fact, a lot of people presented confusing emotions and behaviours even outside my home, and I made it my mission to understand by studying psychology as a precocious pre-teen.That helped me make sense of my life and the minds of the people around me, which led me down the path towards a career in psychiatry.The journey has been a rollercoaster, with gratifying moments of seeing my positive impact, along with the various struggles of working in a strained system with colleagues and authority figures who were sometimes very unkind to me.This journey has been full of grappling with the concept of vulnerability both personally and professionally.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".