MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327029281 · doi:10.7870/cjcmh-2010-0026

Extent and Determinants of General Practitioner Referrals and Contacts With Mental Health Care Providers

2010· article· en· W2327029281 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Marie‐Josée Fleury, Jean-Marie Bamvita, Jacques Tremblay, Alain Lesage

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Community Mental Health · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInstitut universitaire en santé mentale de MontréalMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthDiversity (politics)Collaborative CareNursingService providerPrimary careMental health careQuality (philosophy)PsychologyGlobal Positioning SystemMental health serviceHealth careService (business)MedicineFamily medicinePsychiatryBusinessComputer scienceSociologyMarketingPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In light of current reforms designed to enhance primary care and service integration, this study assesses variables associated with referrals of general practitioners (N = 398) to and their contacts with mental health care providers. Referrals appeared to be more closely related to the case complexity of patients and GPs' individual characteristics (i.e., perceived importance of interorganizational relationships, experience and expertise in mental health), whereas contacts were linked more closely to issues of system quality and access to a shared-care model. Our findings (a) support the development of collaborative models to enhance relationships between mental health care providers and GPs, and (b) promote greater availability and diversity of mental health care services.

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)0.028
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.359 · 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

Citations8
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Community Mental HealthSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207