Make it personal: Commentary on the paper, 'Evaluation of a campaign to improve awareness and attitudes of young people towards mental health issues' (Livingston et al., 2012)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article by Livingston et al. (2012) reporting the evaluation of a campaign to improve awareness and attitudes of young people towards mental health issues makes some insightful points regarding the impact of media campaigns on the stigma of mental illness. The particular Canadian campaign evaluated featured a prominent male sports figure talking about mental health issues and used online social media to reach young people. The effectiveness of the campaign was shown to be limited to the proximal outcomes of increasing awareness and use of a mental health website, but did not impact the distal outcomes to improve attitudes toward people with mental illness. The authors acknowledge that these findings are consistent with Corrigan’s recent summary that such campaigns show evidence of penetration but little meaningful impact (Corrigan, 2012). Notably, this campaign used social media rather than traditional media, which would be expected to have a greater impact for young people, but the anticipated outcomes remained elusive. Livingston et al. make the points, however, that increased market penetration is a worthwhile outcome and that improving mental health literacy, rather than reducing stigma, should be the goal of such media campaigns.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".