“A Better Me for My Children”: A Call for Systemic Relational Family Work in Child and Youth Mental Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite an established body of knowledge supporting the efficacy of systemic and relational approaches in children’s mental health care, there are mounting barriers to family involvement. The current reflexive thematic analysis included data from parents, social work students, university faculty and field professionals, and school board professionals ( n = 65) to understand the mental health needs of parents and families. The findings exemplify the importance of systemic and relational family work for parents supporting their child and family’s mental health. We found a pre-existing and deepening gap in the accessibility of such supports since COVID-19. Implications include a call to renew systems thinking in children’s mental health, a systemic re-shift toward family service organizations including options for multiple members of a family, and education in social work that fosters systemic and relational family approaches to children’s mental health.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.053 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".