MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048873430 · doi:10.1016/s0840-4704(10)60365-1

The Direct Public-Sector Costs for Mental Health in Alberta

2005· article· en· W2048873430 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ray Block, Mel Slomp, Philip Jacobs, Arto Öhinmaa

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Health EconomicsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthBusinessPublic sectorPublic healthIndirect costsHealth servicesEnvironmental healthDirect costFiscal yearMedicineFinancePsychiatryNursingEconomicsAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of the study was to estimate the direct 2002 fiscal year costs for mental health, services in Alberta. Data were collected on mental health publicly funded services and costs. Mental health services cost $573 million annually, amounting to about 8.4% of all provincial health services. The greatest share of costs was for regional inpatient services and physician services (both at 22%). The more direct method used in this study shows higher estimates of mental health costs than previous studies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.353
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.360 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations8
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207