MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136705204 · doi:10.1176/ps.2010.61.10.1032

Sources of Revenue for Nonprofit Mental Health and Addictions Organizations in Canada

2010· article· en· W2136705204 on OpenAlexaffabout
Carissa Escober-Doran, Philip Jacobs, Carolyn S. Dewa

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatric Services · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCommunity Development and Social Impact
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoInstitute of Health Economics
FundersMental Health Commission
KeywordsMental healthRevenueBusinessAddictionNonprofit organizationPsychiatryPublic relationsPsychologyMarketingFinancePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: In Canada charitable or nonprofit organizations provide government-contracted mental health and addictions services, and they augment government funding by raising charitable revenues. This study estimated by source the revenues of nonprofit mental health and addictions organizations in Canada. METHODS: A list of nonprofit, service-providing organizations in Canada was developed, financial returns to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) in 2007 were obtained, and data were analyzed in aggregate. RESULTS: Information was obtained from 369 Canadian organizations, which had $915.4 million (Canadian dollars [CAD]) in total revenues: 85% were from the government, 4% were from charitable giving, and 11% were from other sources. CONCLUSIONS: The ratio of charitable giving to government funding of mental health care was about .55% ($35 million to $6.3 billion CAD). This charitable giving level cannot compensate for the relatively low levels of total government mental health spending identified in government reports.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.210 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychiatric ServicesSame topicCommunity Development and Social ImpactFrench-language works237,207