MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409753025 · doi:10.1192/bjp.2025.94

Truthful communication of mental science: pledge to our patients and profession

2025· article· en· W4409753025 on OpenAlexaff
Gin S. Malhi, Joan Marsh, Döst Öngür, Fiammetta Cosci, John H. Krystal, Karen L. Cropsey, Gregers Wegener, Susan Redline, Carmine M. Pariante, Ida Hageman, Cameron Carter, Winfried Rief, Robin Emsley, Lynn E. DeLisi, Andrea Cipriani, Benedicto Crespo‐Facorro, Steve Kisely, Lakshmi N. Yatham, Jeffrey CL Looi, Roger Mulder, Rajiv Tandon, Paola Dazzan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe British Journal of Psychiatry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsBC Mental Health & Substance Use ServicesUniversity of British ColumbiaDalhousie University
FundersInstituto de Salud Carlos IIIHealth Research Council of New ZealandNational Institutes of HealthH. Lundbeck A/SFondazione CariploAustralian Rotary HealthAngelini PharmaEuropean CommissionDepartment of Health and Social CareNovo NordiskNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchLundbeckfondenLivaNovaHORIZON EUROPE Framework ProgrammeWellcome TrustDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftEli Lilly and CompanyMedical Research CouncilAmerican Foundation for Suicide Prevention
KeywordsPledgeCustodiansCompromiseMental healthConvictionGovernment (linguistics)Psychological sciencePublic relationsPsychologyPolitical scienceSocial psychologyPsychiatryLawHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY: Recent changes in US government priorities have serious negative implications for science that will compromise the integrity of mental health research, which focuses on vulnerable populations. Therefore, as editors of mental science journals and custodians of the academic record, we confirm with conviction our collective commitment to communicating the truth.

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)0.151
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.501
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.799

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1510.501
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0230.057
Scholarly communication0.0380.038
Open science0.0050.027
Research integrity0.0630.105
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.008

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.375 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe British Journal of PsychiatrySame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207