Promoting youth mental health: priorities for policy from an Australian perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This paper considers the priorities for policy to promote youth mental health in Australia. The Ottawa Charter is applied as a conceptual framework to determine current strengths and future priorities across the entire spectrum of interventions for mental health promotion. METHODS: The five platforms of the Ottawa Charter are used to categorize some of the major initiatives that promote youth mental health. Areas of strength and major gaps within each platform are identified. RESULTS: Australia was shown to be at the forefront of many youth mental health promotion initiatives, particularly in the service reorientation and personal skills platforms of the Ottawa Charter. CONCLUSIONS: While significant progress has been made in some areas of youth mental health promotion, areas of critical need for policy focus were: oversight of all public policies for their impact on youth mental health; more supportive environments for youth and better interconnection with mental health care; community action to support the youth voice; investment in resources for parents and families; ensuring quality inreach and outreach to provide young people with positive mental health messages and improve mental health literacy; and embedding and expanding effective innovations in youth mental health services reorientation.
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 | 0.022 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".