MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413358208 · doi:10.5334/ijic.nacic24121

New Horizons - Influencing Policy Development as an Integrated Youth Services Network

2025· article· en· W4413358208 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Darlene Seto, Dorothy Easton

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Integrated Care · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntegrated careBusinessProcess managementNew horizonsIntegrated servicesKnowledge managementPublic relationsComputer scienceHealth carePolitical scienceEngineeringEconomic growthComputer securityEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Integrated youth services (IYS) are transforming mental health and wellness services for young people. Foundry, an IYS network in British Columbia, Canada is leading conversations to increase understanding of the model and explore opportunities to enhance the system-of-care for young people, through a series of policy briefs. Approach: Four policy briefs were developed to support a broader understanding of IYS and Foundry model of care, as well as key issues that are impacting young people. The first two focused on previously identified issues areas, and the corresponding services/interventions offered by Foundry (walk-in counselling, and Foundry Work and Education, an individualized placement support based program). The next two briefs focused on family inclusion in youth services, and youth homelessness prevention, identified emergent topics arising for young people accessing services, to the Foundry Network of integrated health and wellness centres, and of value for provincial policy understanding and consideration. To ensure a thoughtful, well-rounded and integrated analysis that complemented Foundry's unique system position, each brief was developed through a multi-pronged approach involving literature and jurisdictional scans, interviews and discussions with subject matter experts and service providers, and dedicated engagement with youth and families. Collaborative analysis across multiple teams and perspectives was undertaken to support an intersectional and equity-driven analysis. Young people and family members/caregivers reviewed drafts and provided feedback prior to finalization. Results: To date, the development of the policy briefs led our network itself to a deeper understanding of how integrated networks like IYS can support youth and their families in both broad and targeted ways. In particular, this work highlights critical intersections between the social determinants of health, such as housing, employment, access to mental health services, and circles of care, and how these can all have profound impacts on a young person health and wellbeing. The policy briefs speak to the strengths and challenges that exist with IYS networks, as well as the opportunities for continued growth and learning to improve services and supports for young people. The work includes numerous recommendations for government partners and other organizations. Implications: These policy briefs shed light on how IYS networks can help to address a wide variety of policy issues such as housing, timely access to mental health services, family inclusion, and youth-friendly employment and education supports. These briefs are also an example of how evidence, lived experience and data can be brought together and used as levers to advocate for change at the policy level. Foundry is disseminating the learnings and the policy briefs to a wide audience with the goal of sharing the findings and influencing the system-of-care. Our reach will include partners and organizations in the IYS and youth sector, service providers and clinicians, youth and families, and policy makers and government.

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)0.064
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0640.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0160.012
Scholarly communication0.0260.023
Open science0.0040.022
Research integrity0.0100.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.382 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Integrated CareSame topicCommunity Health and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207