Videoconferencing in Telepsychiatry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Literactive videoconferencing is an easy, fast, and relatively inexpensive method of providing psychiatric services over Iong distances. The experiences of telepsychiatry practitioners have been promising in Finland, Norway, the United Kingdom, the USA, Canada, and Australia. The first practical telepsychiatry experiments in Finland were carried out at the Department of Psychiatry of the University of Oulu, where videoconferencing has been used for family therapy, psychiatric supervision, consultation, patient negotiations, and teaching. During 1998, out of a total of 400 hours, 35% of the online time was used for teaching, 24% for occupational counseling, 21% for consultations and patient negotiations, and 20% for methodological development and other activities (mainly testing the connections). The costs of inpatient negotiations via teleconferencing is half those of conventional negotiations. In general, cost analyses have also shown that telepsychiatric services are economically 184 cost-effective in most European countries and in Australia, where a relatively small number of connections exists, while in the USA and Canada, high telecommunications costs make telemedicine more prohibitive compared to conventional care. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: ISOO-HAWORTH. E-mail address: < getinfo@haworthpressinc.com > Website: < https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href=" https://www.HaworthPress.com "> https://www.HaworthPress.com >@2002 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.004 |
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".