Before and after conception . . . Engaging parents of today and parents of tomorrow.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This paper describes a unique relationship and engagement of a leading NGO Family Organization (The FORCE); a highly respected and extensively distributed magazine directed towards parents (Today's Parent) and an academic institution (The Sun Life Financial Chair in Adolescent Mental Health: Dalhousie University and the IWK Health Center in a project that was able to take the national pulse of parent perspectives on child and youth mental health. METHOD: A survey was co-created by parents, academia and media and went live in June 2009 on the Today's Parent website. Such a survey had not been done before. RESULTS: The national survey resulted in a response from almost 4,500 parents. Some of the preliminary findings included: parents do think about mental health concerns of children, including parents of children who don't have any problems and it is often media coverage often prompts parents to think about these issues. One quarter of the respondents were not aware of mental health programs and services for children and youth in their community. Many families waited for more than a year to obtain services. The respondents believed that schools should become more active in addressing mental health needs for children and youth. CONCLUSION: Partnerships involving parent organizations, media and academia have the potential to collaboratively develop processes and methods that can provide a unique window on how to understand various aspects of child and youth mental health. Such partnerships should be considered for future research and information gathering activities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".