MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403471395 · doi:10.1192/bjp.2024.152

Academic psychiatry is everyone's business

2024· editorial· en· W4403471395 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hugo Critchley, Derek K. Tracy, Gin S. Malhi, Laith Alexander, David S. Baldwin, Jonathan Cavanagh, Samuel R. Chamberlain, Andrea Cipriani, Saeed Farooq, Angela Hassiotis, Oliver Howes, Sameer Jauhar, Stephen M. Lawrie, Emmeline Lagunes-Córdoba, Anne Lingford‐Hughes, James H. MacCabe, Ismail Kamal Memon, Ciaran Mulholland, Musa Sami, Kapil Sayal, Rohit Shankar, Lindsey I. Sinclair, Oli Sparasci, Ekkehart Staufenberg, Lucy Stirland, Paul Stokes, Charlotte Wilson Jones, Peter Woodruff, Allan H. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueThe British Journal of Psychiatry · 2024
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCilagJanssen Research and DevelopmentNational Institute of Mental HealthAlzheimer's SocietyCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of OxfordElizabeth Blackwell Institute for Health Research, University of BristolAngelini PharmaLivaNovaNational Taiwan UniversityNSW Ministry of HealthEisaiFondazione CariploAustralian Rotary HealthMedical Research CouncilServierKing's Health PartnersIdorsia PharmaceuticalsH. Lundbeck A/SUniversity of BristolBritannia PharmaceuticalsKing's College LondonUniversity of East AngliaBritish Medical AssociationNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchMichael Smith Health Research BCEli Lilly and CompanyRoyal College of Physicians of EdinburghMylanEuropean CommissionAstraZenecaIndiviorRoyal College of PsychiatristsBRACEWellcome TrustSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation TrustSanofiGW PharmaceuticalsSunovionNorfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustDepartment of Health and Social CareTeva Pharmaceutical IndustriesUK Research and InnovationNational Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and DepressionNational Institute for Health and Care ExcellenceAmerican Foundation for Suicide PreventionPfizerBiogenGlaxoSmithKline
KeywordsSpecialtyValue (mathematics)Frame (networking)Clinical psychiatryPsychologyMedical educationPsychiatryMedicineEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This editorial considers the value and nature of academic psychiatry by asking what defines the specialty and psychiatrists as academics. We frame academic psychiatry as a way of thinking that benefits clinical services and discuss how to inspire the next generation of academics.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0150.006
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0150.028
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.015

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.372 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe British Journal of PsychiatrySame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207