MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415605095 · doi:10.1192/bji.2025.10066

Relational psychiatry and suicidal states: reclaiming hope in everyday clinical practice

2025· article· en· W4415605095 on OpenAlexaff
Subodh Dave, Jon van Niekerk, Jo O’Reilly

Bibliographic record

VenueBJPsych International · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMental Health and Psychiatry
Canadian institutionsCybernet Systems Corporation (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiopsychosocial modelBlameFeelingClinical PracticeEveryday lifeClinical psychiatryService (business)Medical practice

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The growing demand for psychiatric services, coupled with the increasing complexity of clinical presentations, is compounded by systemic pressures - among them inadequate resources, fragmented service configurations, and regulatory and legal frameworks that seem to apportion blame to the individual rather than recognising the wider systemic context. These factors can leave clinicians feeling disempowered and demoralised. This editorial is a call to renew hope, to reaffirm that psychiatrists, using their everyday medical and psychiatric expertise in personalising the biopsychosocial care they provide to their patients, can make a critical difference when dealing with suicidal states. Effective relational psychiatry offers hope to both clinicians and patients. We must not lose it.

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBJPsych InternationalSame topicMental Health and PsychiatryFrench-language works237,207