MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409722697 · doi:10.1016/j.jogc.2025.102913

Virtual Continuing Education to Build Provider Capacity in Perinatal Mental Health: Learnings from Evaluation of a Pilot Project ECHO in Québec

2025· article· en· W4409722697 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Clara Vincent, Anabel Carmel, Iréna Stikarovska, Martin St‐André, Tina Montreuil, Anna MacKinnon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
FundersCHU Sainte-Justine FoundationFonds de recherche du QuébecCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec
KeywordsMedicineEcho (communications protocol)Capacity buildingMental healthContinuing educationProgram evaluationNursingMedical educationEconomic growthPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Canada, between 10% and 25% of individuals experience mental health problems such as symptoms of depression and anxiety during the perinatal period, which spans pregnancy through the first year postpartum. When untreated, perinatal mental health problems can negatively affect parent well-being and child development, which has significant economic costs. Perinatal mental health problems often go undetected, with only 1 out of 10 mothers who will receive the required mental health care. A survey conducted by the Canadian Perinatal Mental Health Collaborative indicated that only 13% of perinatal healthcare providers have mandated mental health screening in their workplace, with 66% using a validated tool.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.197
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada→Same topicHealth Policy Implementation Science→French-language works237,207→