MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W77653977

Immigrants and mental health services: increasing collaboration with other service providers.

2005· article· en· W77653977 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lucie Nadeau, Toby Measham

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsMontreal Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthRefugeeImmigrationInterpreterService providerService (business)NursingWork (physics)Mental health careMedicinePsychologyPublic relationsPolitical sciencePsychiatryBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: This article examines the potential modifications of care indicated to engage migrant and refugee families in making use of needed mental health services for their children in Canada and the role psychiatrists can play in this process. METHOD: The clinical and consultative role of the members of the Transcultural Child Psychiatry Service at the Montreal Children's Hospital is used as a model. This model has been useful in engaging both migrant families and local front line service providers to work with each other in a collaborative manner. RESULTS: Important aspects to be considered in these cases are: Modifications in obtaining access to care; Issues of communication (i.e., the use of interpreters); Addressing cultural differences in understanding and responding to a child's difficulties; recognizing the plasticity of culture; Collaboration with colleagues in hospitals and with professionals in the community. CONCLUSIONS: New models of care, involving increased collaboration between professionals, need to be devised to facilitate the mental health care of immigrant and refugee children and their families.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations34
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207