MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2205689470 · doi:10.7870/cjcmh-2008-0023

Creating Primary Care Access for Mental Health Care Clients in A Community Mental Health Setting

2008· article· en· W2205689470 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Tamison Doey, Pamela Hines, Bonnie Myslik, JoAnn Elizabeth Leavey, Jamie A. Seabrook

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Community Mental Health · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsChildren’s Health Research InstituteLondon Health Sciences CentreCanadian Mental Health Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthWindsorMedicineMultidisciplinary approachMental illnessNursingFamily medicineHealth carePopulationPsychiatryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Successful support of persons living with a mental illness in the community is challenged by the lack of primary care accessible to this population. The Canadian Mental Health Association–Windsor Essex County Branch explored options to provide mental and physical health care, initially creating an integrated primary care clinic and later a larger community health clinic co-located with its mental health care services and staffed by a multidisciplinary team. A retrospective review of 805 charts and a client satisfaction survey were conducted in 2001 to evaluate this service. Findings indicate that access to primary care and mental health care co-located at a community-based clinic has reduced the number of emergency room visits and admissions, and length of stay in hospital, for individuals with moderate to serious mental illness. A client survey in January 2008 supports these preliminary findings.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.339 · 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
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

Citations15
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Community Mental HealthSame topicMental Health Treatment and AccessFrench-language works237,207