Primary Mental Health Care Reform: Catch the Wave
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is growing energy behind primary mental health care reform - from political activity, research, funding and clinical practice. The evidence that early adopters have been busy reforming mental health services in primary health care is apparent in the rise of references to primary mental health care and collaborative care in national and provincial planning documents, clinical trials examining the efficacy of collaborative mental health care, funded clinical programs across the country, and the establishment of a nationally funded initiative - the Canadian Collaborative Mental Health Initiative - to research and develop tools to implement collaborative mental health care. In conclusion, there is real momentum in primary mental health care reform. Health care planners and executives will want to turn their attention to collaborative care as the benefits to individuals and their families, the health care system, and to the economy are clear.
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 | 0.016 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.004 |
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".