MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160049140 · doi:10.1108/17479886200800004

First Nations and Inuit Mental Wellness Strategic Action Plan

2008· article· en· W2160049140 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kathy Langlois

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Leadership in Public Services · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthAction planCommissionPolitical scienceAction (physics)Strategic planningGlobal mental healthMental illnessCitizen journalismEconomic growthPublic administrationMedicineBusinessManagementPsychiatryLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many First Nations and Inuit communities in Canada confront historical, cultural, socioeconomic and geographic barriers that have a profound impact on mental wellness. In 2006, a Senate Committee reported on mental health, mental illness and addiction. A key result has been the creation of the Mental Health Commission of Canada (MHCC). Around the same time, Health Canada established a Mental Wellness Advisory Committee (MWAC) in collaboration with the representative bodies of Canada's First Nations and Inuit ‐ the Assembly of First Nations and the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami ‐ to develop a strategic action plan to improve mental wellness outcomes of First Nations and Inuit. A participatory, inclusive and consensus‐based approach to the MWAC work has been key to the successful development of the strategic action plan and has brought credence and legitimacy to the process. MWAC, the strategic action plan and the ready linkages with the MHCC are important guides for moving forwards to improve the mental wellness outcomes of Canada's First Nations and Inuit.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.940

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.164
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Leadership in Public ServicesSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207