Benchmarking Child and Adolescent Mental Health Organizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This paper describes aspects of the child and adolescent benchmarking forums that were part of the National Mental Health Benchmarking Project (NMHBP). These forums enabled participating child and adolescent mental health organizations to benchmark themselves against each other, with a view to understanding variability in performance against a range of key performance indicators (KPIs). METHOD: Six child and adolescent mental health organizations took part in the NMHBP. Representatives from these organizations attended eight benchmarking forums at which they documented their performance against relevant KPIs. They also undertook two special projects designed to help them understand the variation in performance on given KPIs. RESULTS: There was considerable inter-organization variability on many of the KPIs. Even within organizations, there was often substantial variability over time. The variability in indicator data raised many questions for participants. This challenged participants to better understand and describe their local processes, prompted them to collect additional data, and stimulated them to make organizational comparisons. These activities fed into a process of reflection about their performance. CONCLUSIONS: Benchmarking has the potential to illuminate intra- and inter-organizational performance in the child and adolescent context.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".