Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years many countries have embarked on various types of health and mental health reform. These reforms have in large part been driven by governments' concerns for cost containment which has, in turn, been driven by an increasing process of global marketization and the need to control national deficits. A critical issue in these reforms is the increased emphasis on the use of "market mechanisms" in the delivery of health and mental health services. This paper uses a policy analysis framework to compare recent developments in the mental health sector in Canada, the United States, Britain and Australia. The common framework to be used for this will focus on: the defining characteristics of the society; legislative mandate; sectorial location (within or separate from health sector); funding streams; organising values of the system; locus of service delivery; service technologies; the role of social work; interprofessional dynamics; the role of consumers; and evaluation of outcomes at multiple levels. This analysis provides an opportunity to explore similarities and differences in mental system reform and in particular identify the challenges for social work in the field of mental health in the 21st century.
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.001 |
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".