MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Stigma in school‐based mental health: perceptions of young people and service providers

2012· article· en· W1993885481 on OpenAlexafffund
Hayley Bowers, Ian Manion, Despina Papadopoulos, Emily Gauvreau

Bibliographic record

VenueChild and Adolescent Mental Health · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsOntario Centre of Excellence for Child and Youth Mental Health
FundersMental Health CommissionCommission de la santé mentale du Canada
KeywordsMental healthStigma (botany)PerceptionMental health serviceService providerYoung adultPsychologySocial stigmaHelp-seekingPsychiatryMedicineService (business)GerontologyFamily medicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Business

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mental health affects one in five young people, with the majority avoiding help due to stigma. In this study, young people's (n = 49) perception of stigma as a barrier to accessing school-based mental health services was compared with that of service providers (n = 63), along with the perceived extent of mental health problems and availability of school-based mental health resources. METHOD: Participants completed a survey or interview. EBSCO and PubMed databases were used for the duration of this study, from August 2010 to September 2011. RESULTS: A greater proportion of young people versus providers reported stigma as the largest barrier to accessing mental health services. In addition, most young people reported that school-based mental health resources were scarce. CONCLUSIONS: These results emphasize the need for young people's involvement in mental health initiatives.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations155
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild and Adolescent Mental HealthSame topicMental Health Treatment and AccessFrench-language works237,207