MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331758094 · doi:10.7870/cjcmh-2005-0005

Mental Health Respite Services: A Grounded Service Delivery Model

2005· article· en· W2331758094 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jill G. Grant, Anne Westhues

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Community Mental Health · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespite careMental healthService (business)NursingPerceptionService providerPsychologyGrounded theoryService delivery frameworkValue (mathematics)Needs assessmentMedicineBusinessQualitative researchPsychiatrySociologyMarketingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A needs assessment for mental health respite services was undertaken at Waterloo Regional Homes for Mental Health in Kitchener, Ontario. Twenty-seven participants (consumers, carers, and service providers) were asked about their perceptions of the need for mental health respite services, and about their preferences for a model of respite in their community. A convergent analysis of participants' responses leads to one possible model of respite, while a divergent analysis considers program and value dilemmas for potential planners of programs directed at multiple stakeholders. Participants' frustrations with current services remind mental health programs of the importance of consulting with all stakeholders as they evaluate and develop programs.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Community Mental HealthSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207