MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281773782 · doi:10.1177/10634266221090151

Levels of Care: A Scoping Review of Conceptualizations in Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services

2022· review· en· W4281773782 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

VenueJournal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsChildren’s Health Research InstituteWestern University
FundersChildren's Health Research Institute
KeywordsPsychologyMental healthTriageQualitative researchApplied psychologyHealth careNursingPsychotherapistMedicinePsychiatrySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The term level of care is utilized in mental health care to refer to the different ways in which treatment can be delivered, including qualitative (e.g., modality, approach, setting) and quantitative (e.g., number of sessions, frequency of sessions) variations in services. The concept is often embedded in models of care and measures, yet there is no agreed upon definition or understanding of what it encompasses. A scoping review of level of care conceptualizations in models of care, and triage and service use measures was conducted. Twenty-nine conceptualizations across 63 articles were identified, 12 focused on qualitative components, four on quantitative components, and 13 on a combination of qualitative and quantitative components. A conceptual model to integrate the literature reviewed is proposed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.756
Threshold uncertainty score0.750

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.338 · 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