Shared Mental Health Care for a Marginalized Community in Inner-City Canada
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
OBJECTIVES: This paper describes the experience and evaluation of a shared care project targeted at marginalized individuals living in the North End of Halifax, Nova Scotia. This population has high rates of psychiatric disorder, often comorbid with chronic medical conditions, and people have difficulty in obtaining the help they need. This primary care liaison service covers all ages and includes outreach to emergency shelters, transitional housing and drop-in centres. Collaborative care improved access, satisfaction and outcomes for marginalized individuals in urban settings. Primary care providers with access to the service reported greater comfort in dealing with mental health problems, and satisfaction with collaborative care, as well as mental health services in general. Results were significantly better than those of control practices when such data were available. The median wait time was 6 days in comparison with 39.5 days for the comparison site. CONCLUSIONS: This model can complement other initiatives to improve the health of marginalized populations, and may be relevant to Australia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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