MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7032910183

POSITIVE MENTAL HEALTH SURVEILLANCE INDICATOR FRAMEWORK\nQUICK STATS, YOUTH (12 TO 17 YEARS OF AGE), CANADA, 2017 EDITION

2017· article· en· W7032910183 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed Central · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicModeling, Simulation, and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthAgency (philosophy)Public healthBehavioral Risk Factor Surveillance SystemQuality of life (healthcare)Quality (philosophy)Public health surveillance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Positive mental health is a state of well-being that allows people to feel, think and act in ways that enhance the ability to enjoy life\nand deal with challenges.1 The Positive Mental Health Surveillance Indicator Framework (“the Framework”) provides comprehensive,\nhigh quality information on the outcomes and risk and protective factors associated with positive mental health across four domains\n(individual, family, community and society), to support research and policy development. The release of the Framework for youth\naged 12 to 17 years is the second in a series; the Framework for adults aged 18 years and older was released in early 2016.2 The Framework\nwas developed in consultation with stakeholders working in mental health surveillance, programs and policy. The details of the\ndevelopment of the Frameworks across the life course, for adults, youth and children, can be found in the paper “Monitoring positive\nmental health and its determinants.”3 More data on positive mental health can be found online using the Public Health Agency of\nCanada’s interactive data tool, “Infobase.”4

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.365

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0090.020
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0580.010

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.250 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed CentralSame topicModeling, Simulation, and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207