Young people’s perspectives on barriers to accessing supports and services in Drayton Valley, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As young people transition to adulthood, they are required to exercise more autonomy when accessing informal psychosocial support and formal health and social services. This qualitative study examines the lived experience of forty-nine young people aged thirteen to twenty-four in Drayton Valley, Canada, and their accounts of accessing support and services in response to mental and physical health needs. Drayton Valley is an economically volatile community dependent on the oil and gas industry. Using data from the Resilient Youth in Stressed Environment project, we investigated the experiences of young people when accessing healthcare, social, and community services. We used a general inductive analysis approach to develop a framework for how young people decide whether or not to engage with support and services. In general, youth reported needing positive knowledge about services, trust in both the organization and providers of services, the independence to seek supports and/or services that they valued, and the need to experience a fit with the mandate of their service provider. Our findings suggest that to increase the use of supports and services, policies need to better account for young people’s experiences when seeking help.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".