The professional learning process of enhancing mental health literacy and its application to youth work practice: a grounded theory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Youth workers provide services to youth and their families in different fields such as recreation, social justice, mental health. They play an important role in the well-being of youth and thus, mental health literacy (MHL) should be an integral part of professional preparation. The present grounded theory study examined how a MHL curriculum, specifically designed for youth work, is applied in interventions with young people suffering from suicidality or mental health concerns. Thirteen participants involved in higher education programmes and engaged in youth work practice participated in the study. Over 60 sources of data (i.e. interviews, written reflections, creative artefacts, observations) were used in the analysis. Findings suggest that the process of becoming and being in youth work is comprised of two sub-categories: struggling to become and being a youth worker. Conditions such as learning activities and specific content in the curriculum shaped and influenced the process and, consequentially, participants’ movement therein. These findings imply that promoting MHL and professional identity development are intertwined learning processes such that mental health education must integrate issues of professional identity.
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 | 0.024 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".