MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412693438 · doi:10.1007/s10597-025-01498-1

The Occupation of Youth Peer Support Workers Within an Integrated Youth Services Initiative

2025· article· en· W4412693438 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Madelyn Whyte, Kaylie Schols-Flett, Bridgette Ferrara, C. James Warren, M. A. Wenger, Gina Dimitropoulos, Skye Barbic

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunity Mental Health Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesUniversity of British Columbia HospitalAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of CalgaryProvidence Health CareSpinal Cord Injury BCUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of Canada
KeywordsOccupational safety and healthPeer supportPositive Youth DevelopmentPsychologySuicide preventionPeer reviewPoison controlEnvironmental healthMedicinePolitical sciencePsychiatryDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Youth peer support workers (YPSWs) use lived/living experience to provide support. However, there is a knowledge gap about service impact on YPSWs themselves. To understand (1) impact being a YPSW has on well-being, (2) experience of being a YPSW, and (3) barriers and facilitators of being a YPSW. Eighteen YPSWs at an integrated youth services (IYS) initiative in British Columbia, Canada, completed semi-structured interviews in fall 2023. Interviews were analysed thematically using an inductive approach. Themes were identified relating to the YPSW role extending beyond employment, providing a sense of purpose and contributing to personal and professional growth as a low-barrier employment opportunity. YPSWs also identified barriers and facilitators within their role. Findings highlight the value of YPSWs as an occupation and the distinction of this role. To strengthen the profession and increase supports for YPSWs, the development of clear policies and standards is essential.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.326
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0100.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.309
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunity Mental Health JournalSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207