<i>Common Ground:</i> The Canadian Collaborative Mental Health Initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As one of 12 participating national health associations, Dietitians of Canada (DC) endorsed the Charter Principles and Commitments created by the Canadian Collaborative Mental Health Initiative (CCMHI). The Chair of the DC Board of Directors signed the Charter, committing DC to work collaboratively to uphold the Principles and actively endorse the Commitments. ACHIEVEMENTS: The Initiative's vision, making mental health care work--new places, new partners, new hope, provided the Steering Committee with a clear direction. The CCMHI Charter Principles cover promotion and prevention, a holistic approach, collaboration, partnership, respect, information exchange, and resources. In addition to the Charter, the CCMHI has produced a series of 12 toolkits and research papers. The toolkits are practical pieces that also contain ideas and other information. Dietitians of Canada has developed a toolkit that examines the dietitian's role in primary health care mental health programs. A set of reviews of the practice of collaborative mental health care in Canada covers a wide range of issues, from the attributes of effective collaborative care to a discussion of the barriers to collaboration. CONCLUSION: Communications between the 12 member organizations are ongoing, and the organizations await the establishment of the Canadian Mental Health Commission, which is expected to be up and running in fall 2006.
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 | 0.021 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.004 |
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".