A narrative approach: barriers and facilitators to access and care in services for youth eating disorders in Atlantic Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through a narrative approach, this thesis explores youth and family perspectives on experiences \nin accessing eating disorder services in Atlantic Canada. These narrative journeys were explored \nthrough conversations with a range of participants (five youth and six parents) in a one to one \ninterview setting, thus providing rich and specific experiential data. The main barriers discovered \nwere a lack of psychological services, guidance from family physicians, resources, and eating \ndisorder education. Main facilitators included having a knowledgeable family physician, \npsychological support, an outpatient program, an eating disorder advocacy organization, and an \nadolescent eating disorder service. Major recommendations focus on increasing the number of \nexperienced clinical psychologists in the province and increasing specific eating disorder training \nfor service providers. This type of multi-vocal data is novel in Atlantic Canada, and holds value \nin including voices of youth and their families when exploring how to better improve services. \nThe findings are interpreted in relation to ecological models of youth development.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".