MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404781407 · doi:10.23977/aetp.2024.080625

Exploring the Primary Mental Health Care Policies for Minors in China from 2015 to 2023 Using a Policy Triangle Framework

2024· article· en· W4404781407 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Educational Technology and Psychology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Support in Illness
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthChinaPrimary carePsychologyPolitical scienceMedicineFamily medicinePsychiatryLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to China's rapid economic development in recent years, the prevalence of psychiatric disorders among minors has increased due to intense social competition. China has issued a number of mental health policies to address the issue. Therefore, this project will explore the impact of China's primary mental health care policies on the accessibility of minors to mental health services. This project collected the mental health policy documents for minors published in China from 2015 to 2023. The collected policies are analysed using qualitative research methods. The triangular policy framework is used to analyse the content of policies and actors. Through the thematic analysis of the accessibility related content in the policy content, four main themes of improving service accessibility were obtained: the construction of a mental health service system, the education of mental health knowledge, the construction of a mental health social environment and multi-sectoral cooperation. Thematic analysis of the key actors in the content reveals that the health sector, the education sector, the civil affairs sector and Non-Governmental Organizations have played an important role in the formulation and implementation of the policy. These departments work together to promote the improvement and optimization of minor's mental health services. The project noted that there are still challenges in terms of resource investment, multisectoral collaboration mechanisms and the training and development of professionals. Based on these findings, the project recommends policies to enhance intersectoral collaboration, optimize resource allocation, and train.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.398 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Educational Technology and PsychologySame topicFamily Support in IllnessFrench-language works237,207