Collaborating to improve child and youth mental health in Nunavik
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following various reports highlighting the lack of mental health services for children and youth in Nunavik (Quebec, Canada), high rates of child placements under youth protection, and gaps in the coordination of services, the Regional Partnership Committee of Nunavik decided to prioritize collaborative, community-based approaches to the health and wellbeing of children, youth, and their families. It is in this context that the regional project Ilagiinut (‘For families’) was initiated and is being piloted in Kuujjuaraapik. In mental health care, collaborative practices are highly valued, and various models are flourishing. However, collaborative care models are not necessarily easy to implement and involve a variety of ingredients, including trust, strong partnerships, clarity of roles, and power dynamics, all of which are influenced by culture and context. In this study, we conducted a total of 54 interviews with administrators, clinicians, and Inuit family members to explore their everyday expectations for and experiences with child and youth mental health services and collaboration between people involved in care. In our analysis we explore how context influences expectations, beliefs, and experiences, and ultimately how these factors impact the nature of services offered to children, youth, and families. The aim is to shed light on obstacles to and facilitators of collaboration in child and youth mental health in order to inform individuals, communities, and organizations that are trying to change policy and practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".