A descriptive study of primary health care practices in Ontario's youth custody facilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adolescents admitted to youth custody facilities are often in need of physical and mental health care. OBJECTIVES: To describe primary health care practices in Ontario's youth custody facilities. METHOD: A questionnaire regarding facility characteristics and primary health care practices was distributed to the directors of all youth custody facilities in Ontario. RESULTS: Most (87.8%) facilities obtained medical histories after the youth arrived, and 92% used health care professionals to perform that assessment. Intake medical examinations were performed on each youth admitted to custody at 94% of all facilities; however, only 57.2% of facilities reported that these examinations were performed by a doctor within 72 h of admission. Performing suicide assessments on all youth at intake was reported by 77.6% of facilities. Continuous health education was provided by 76% of facilities. Facility type and type of management appear to be related to some areas of health services provision. CONCLUSIONS: Youth custody facilities in Ontario are providing primary health care services. Weaknesses are, however, evident, particularly in relation to untimely intake medical examinations, failure to provide continuous health education and failure to conduct suicide assessments on all youth at intake. Future research on barriers to health service provision in Canadian youth custody facilities is recommended.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".