Correction: Balancing promise and concern in AI therapy: a critical perspective on early evidence from the MIT–OpenAI RCT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A correction refers to a change to their article that the author wishes to publish after publication. The publication of this article is subject to Frontiers' editorial approval.• Please read through all the templates before choosing • Pick the most relevant text template(s) from the following page and delete all others.• Edit the text as necessary, ensuring that the original incorrect text is included for the record, please see the below. • Please do not use any extra formatting when editing the templates, and only modify the red text unless absolutely necessary • Submit to Frontiers following the instructions on this page.When the original text contained incorrect information, to preserve the scientific record, please include that text when editing the below templates. For example:There was a mistake in the Funding statement, an incorrect number was used.The correct number is "2015C03Bd051.". The publisher apologizes for this mistake.The original version of this article has been updated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.064 | 0.607 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.008 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".