MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399892262 · doi:10.1080/15332985.2024.2368594

Mental health service accessibility for young people in rural, regional, and remote areas and its implications for social work practice: a scoping review protocol

2024· review· en· W4399892262 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ross Driver

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Work in Mental Health · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthSocial workMental health serviceRural areaMental illnessWork (physics)Mental distressPsychologyMedicineEconomic growthPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Young people in rural, regional, and remote communities experience high levels of mental distress. Health services in rural and remote communities are also poorer in quality. Hence, it is critical to understand how social work can help young people in these areas access mental health supports. This scoping review identifies what enables and hinders access to mental health services for young people in rural, regional, and remote areas of Australia and Canada. Twenty-two studies published between 2018 and 2022 were included and analyzed. Findings highlight the need for social workers to reduce peer-stigmatization of mental illness and foster community collaboration.

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 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.435
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.375
GPT teacher head0.607
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Work in Mental HealthSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207