Connecting youth with health services: Systematic review.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify models of health care delivery that support youth access to health and mental health care. DATA SOURCES: Information was obtained from PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Knowledge, and Sociological Abstracts (CSA Illumina). STUDY SELECTION: Studies reviewed in this article provided level I, II, or III evidence. SYNTHESIS: Youth access health care, with the support of parents and family, through families' existing health care providers or family physicians. Youth might be reluctant to involve parents or to consult family physicians for health concerns related to substance use, emotional problems, or reproductive concerns. Primary health care service models need to support youth access to care and ensure that youth feel comfortable seeking care for all of their health concerns. School-based and community-based health care centres might be better positioned to meet the needs of youth than traditional office-based practices are. CONCLUSION: There is a growing body of evidence on health service models that support effective and accessible delivery of health and mental health services for youth. The health needs and challenges of youth are often predictable. Available evidence highlights the importance of including youth experience and voices in planning, delivery, and evaluation of services.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it