MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7126020948 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/mwscd

Early intervention services for first episode psychosis in non-urban First Nations contexts: a scoping review protocol

2025· other· W7126020948 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tamoor Mirza, Kylie Dingwall, Tricia Nagel, Bianca Stugnell

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2025
Typeother
Language
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)IndigenousPsychosisService (business)Protocol (science)Strengths and weaknessesMental illness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this scoping review is to assess the extent of recent literature of early intervention service models for first episode psychosis in Australia including regional and remote locations. More specifically, it aims to study which studies encompass strengths and weaknesses of service models for Indigenous young people experiencing early psychotic illness and also young people with psychotic conditions living in regional and remote places. Has the models currently being used been useful for these populations or not?

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)0.109
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.087
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.577

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1090.087
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.011
Bibliometrics0.0150.014
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0050.008
Research integrity0.0080.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0490.011

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.370 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MIND→French-language works237,207→