MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7133079544

Intensive Children and Youth Mental Health Services in Ontario: Applying Gelberg-Andersen's Behavioral Model of Health Service Use for Vulnerable Populations

2020· dissertation· W7133079544 on OpenAlexaffabout
Dianna Thomson-So

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2020
Typedissertation
Language
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Health Services and Policy Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthBehavioral modelingSample (material)Health servicesMental health serviceTest (biology)Norm (philosophy)Multivariate statistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ontario’s child and youth mental health (CYMH) system is undergoing a transformation aimed at improving access to effective services. Evidence-informed policy directions are the new norm however; few dynamic models exist to understand the utilization of CYMH services. This study adapted the Gelberg-Andersen Behavioral Model of Health Service Use for Vulnerable Populations for use in CYMH and tested its utility. The model was tested using a data sample of children and youth (n=642) referred to one of three levels of intensive mental health treatment (in-home, day treatment or residential). Multivariate analysis determined whether model variables predicted level of care. Significant group differences were found for some variables and predictive models were significant. The enhanced model contributed to an increased understanding of the relationship between individual predisposing, enabling and need characteristics and health service access. Future research is required to test the application of this model with other samples and services.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.256 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development→French-language works237,207→