MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7011229643

Learning from each other: identifying further needs for older adult programming at four Canadian Mental Health Association regional branches from the perspectives of front line staff

2018· article· en· W7011229643 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueArca (British Columbia Electronic Library Network) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological Testing and Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthAgency (philosophy)Thematic analysisFocus groupFront linePopulationQualitative researchAssociation (psychology)Work (physics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this project is to review existing programs that are available to the older adult population aged 55 and over with Mental Health issues at four BC Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA) branches, with a focus on service providers‟ perceptions of program opportunities. The selected branches include Vancouver-Fraser (CMHA-VF) branch, North and West Vancouver, Shuswap-Revelstoke, and Kelowna branches. The reason for conducting research on this topic is to determine what types of targeted programming might best support regional older adults with mental health concerns. Data was collected using FluidSurveys, and the survey questions allowed for both qualitative and quantitative data. The questions encouraged participants to share their views as front-line staff who work with clients, and what they determine to be effective programs for older adults versus in their view, and what they believe their agency may be able to benefit from, for future programming. Five thematic categories were developed from participants‟ feedback: stigma, education and outreach, leisure/recreational/social wellness programs, how to access resources and future older adult programming. These themes demonstrate not only the work front-line staff members are currently doing within the agency, but also areas of program development that are identified. A theoretical framework of Erik Erikson‟s life span development perspective, and exploring the various social determinants of health, provides a foundation for understanding why older adults experience social exclusion and are denied the opportunity to gain access to resources.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.263
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.251 · 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