Key steps for a mental health and addictions performance measurement framework for Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To inform the development of a pan-Canadian Mental Health and Addictions (MHA) performance measurement framework, we undertook a rapid review of the recent Performance Measurement (PM) literature and solicited input from 20 MHA policy and measurement experts. Six key steps for framework development were identified: recognizing and acknowledging key issues, developing shared language and understanding of key concepts, defining overall scope, defining framework dimension/domains, selecting indicators and using systematic engagement and consultation processes with stakeholders. Subject matter experts underscored the need for a comprehensive engagement process which would honour multiple stakeholder viewpoints and attend to key issues in the codesign of features of the PM framework. Findings from this analysis may be used to inform a comprehensive stakeholder consultation process for the development of a pan-Canadian PM framework for MHA.
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 | 0.106 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".