MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383876039 · doi:10.7870/cjcmh-2023-011

Youth Wellness Hubs Ontario: An Innovative Model for Engagement and Equity-Based Considerations in Funding Allocations in Youth Mental Health

2023· article· en· W4383876039 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Joanna Henderson, Debbie Chiodo

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Community Mental Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent and Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRigourEquity (law)Mental healthYouth engagementPsychologyProcess (computing)Public relationsApplied psychologySociologyBusinessPolitical sciencePsychiatryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes the process used by Youth Wellness Hubs Ontario to integrate the rigour of conventional funding allocation processes with authentic engagement and equity-centred processes in youth mental health. This approach may provide a model for others aiming to implement equity and engagement funding allocation processes for integrated care.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.797

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0140.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.463
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.025 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Community Mental HealthSame topicAdolescent and Pediatric HealthcareFrench-language works237,207