MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2252453156 · doi:10.7870/cjcmh-2002-0017

Mental Health Reform in Post-Soviet Society: Canadian Supported Community Focused Mental Health Services Reform Initiatives in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia

2002· article· en· W2252453156 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Peter Ilves, John Trainor, Kulli Poder, Georgina Veldhorst

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Community Mental Health · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthGeneral partnershipEconomic growthUnit (ring theory)Political scienceMedicinePsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mental health services in the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are in transition from highly institutional to community-focused systems of care. Despite a shared history, the three countries are reforming their service infrastructures at different rates and with different areas of focus. Working in partnership with consumers, families, and national and local administrators, the Community Support and Research Unit of the Toronto-based Centre for Addiction and Mental Health has provided varied technical assistance to support the building of a community mental health infrastructure in all three countries. In Canada, mental health reform efforts are supported by a broad constituency; in the Baltic countries, however, community-focused service innovations and systems-level reform are advanced by a few motivated individuals (local change agents). Nonetheless, in comparison to the decades-long development of community-focused services in Canada, countries such as Estonia have reformed quickly.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0160.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Community Mental HealthSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207