MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2938678771 · doi:10.12927/hcpol.2019.25794

A Fresh Approach to Reform? A Policy Analysis of the Development and Implementation of Ontario’s Mental Health and Addictions Strategy

2019· article· en· W2938678771 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Heather L. Bullock, Julia Abelson

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare policy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicy Transfer and Learning
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthAddictionPsychologyPolicy developmentPsychiatryPolitical sciencePublic administration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Open Minds, Healthy Minds, Ontario's Comprehensive Mental Health and Addictions Strategy commits to the transformation of mental health and addictions services for all Ontarians. Objective: We analyzed the formulation and implementation of this Strategy to address the question: What are the prospects for transformative change in Ontario's current approach to mental health and addictions? Methods: Qualitative policy analysis using interpretive description of key documents of the policy process, drawing on policy network and horizontal governance theory. Results: Three features set this policy process apart from previous reform efforts: (1) expansion of the state pluralist network to those outside of health, (2) extension of the policy network approach into the Strategy's implementation stage and (3) the combined presence of political and policy leadership. Conclusions: There is reason for optimism that the approach of the Strategy has increased the prospects for the transformation of Ontario's mental health and addictions system.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.679
Threshold uncertainty score0.788

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0140.011
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare policySame topicPolicy Transfer and LearningFrench-language works237,207