A position statement developed by the Canadian Psychiatric Association’s Stigma–Discrimination Working Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
and approved by the Canadian Psychiatric Association’s Board of Directors on August 30, 2010. The Board of the Canadian Psychiatric Association (CPA) established a Stigma–Discrimination Working Group (SDWG) in the fall of 2007 with a mandate to explore and advise the CPA on priorities for addressing stigma and discrimination within the scope of the CPA’s sphere of influence. The SDWG was further advised to ensure its work was evidenced-based, and was mandated to guide and lead the implementation of the CPA’s interventions aimed at improved quality of care and reducing the stigmatizing attitudes and discrimination experienced by patients and their families, colleagues, and members of the psychiatric profession, as well as to reduce the stigmatizing attitudes within the medical profession. As specialists in
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 | 0.023 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 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".