Youth at ultra high risk for psychosis: using the Revised Network Episode Model to examine pathways to mental health care
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This paper aims to identify the ways in which youth at ultra high risk for psychosis access mental health services and the factors that advance or delay help seeking, using the Revised Network Episode Model (REV NEM) of mental health care. METHODS: A case study approach documents help-seeking pathways, encompassing two qualitative interviews with 10 young people and 29 significant others. Theoretical propositions derived from the REV NEM are explored, consisting of the content, structure and function of the: (i) family; (ii) community and school; and (iii) treatment system. RESULTS: Although the aspects of the REV NEM are supported and shape pathways to care, we consider rethinking the model for help seeking with youth at ultra high risk for psychosis. CONCLUSIONS: The pathway concept is important to our understanding of how services and supports are received and experienced over time. Understanding this process and the strategies that support positive early intervention on the part of youth and significant others is critical.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it