MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069377656 · doi:10.4236/health.2014.68089

Why Can’t Canada Spend More on Mental Health?

2014· article· en· W2069377656 on OpenAlexaffabout
Steve Lurie

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsCanadian Mental Health AssociationUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthMental illnessStigma (botany)Investment (military)Social stigmaEconomic growthPsychiatryDeveloping countryBusinessPsychologyDevelopment economicsMedicinePolitical scienceEconomicsFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The World Health Organization (WHO) notes that mental illness accounts for 13% of the world’s disease burden, yet most countries under invest despite the social and economic costs of mental illness. It has been suggested that this lack of investment may be a result of stigma. A number of high income countries invest 10% or more in their mental health services. Although Canada is a high income country, its mental health spending is 7.2% according to the WHO Mental Health Atlas. This article will review the factors influencing Canada and its provinces’ under investment in mental health, compare its performance with other countries and make the case on why and how this could change.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.333
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.355 · 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
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

Citations11
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthSame topicMental Health Treatment and AccessFrench-language works237,207