MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770049593

A Review of Mental Health Services Offered by Canada's English language Universities

2017· review· en· W2770049593 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Melanie Matthews

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterpreting and Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthEnglish languageLinguisticsPsychologyPsychiatryMathematics education
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Student mental health on university campuses in Canada has been identified as a growing issue that requires a systemic response from post-secondary institutions as students are more likely to seek support from services on campus than in the community. Different types of counselling and specialized services for specific mental health issues are required to address the mental health needs of students. However, a review of the services offered on 53 English language, publically funded university campuses across Canada using the universities’ websites revealed that the type and number of services offered is dependent on several factors such as enrollment size and location. The most commonly offered type of counselling revealed in the review was individual counselling, and the most commonly offered specialized services were for anxiety and eating disorders. Completely absent were specialized services for personality disorders and psychosis. Continued research is necessary due to lack of data regarding prevalence rates of student mental health issues specific to Canada and the effectiveness of current mental health 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.483

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0120.020
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.170
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship@Western (Western University)Same topicInterpreting and Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207