MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963742579 · doi:10.1093/heapro/daz071

Equipping youth for meaningful policy engagement: an environmental scan

2019· review· en· W2963742579 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Promotion International · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityCanadian Mental Health AssociationUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsycINFOCINAHLMental healthGrey literatureInclusion (mineral)Health promotionPromotion (chess)MEDLINEYouth participationPsychologyIntervention (counseling)Public relationsHealth policyPolitical scienceMental illnessPoison controlApplied psychologyMedical educationPsychological interventionMedicineNursingPublic healthPsychiatryEnvironmental healthPoliticsSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To better address the mental health and substance use crises facing youth globally, a comprehensive approach, inclusive of mental health promotion is needed. A key component of mental health promotion is policy intervention to address the social and structural determinants of health. Importantly, youth should be engaged in these efforts to maximize relevancy and impact. Yet, while there is growing interest in the inclusion of youth in the policymaking process, there is a paucity of guidance on how to do this well. This environmental scan reports findings from a comprehensive search of academic and grey literature that was conducted using the electronic databases: CINAHL, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, and Google. Search terms included variations of 'youth*', 'educat*', 'engage*', 'policy' and 'policy training'. Thirteen English language training programmes met inclusion criteria. Analysis identified marked differences in programme philosophy and focus by geographic region and highlights the need for enhanced evaluation and impact measurement moving forward. This paper makes a needed contribution to the evidence-base guiding this key mental health promotion strategy, which holds the potential to address critical gaps in approaches to youth mental health and substance use.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.580
GPT teacher head0.599
Teacher spread0.019 · 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