People with schizophrenia can become resilient while recovering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People diagnosed with schizophrenia who consider themselves to have recovered were interviewed to identify what they believe resilience is and how it may have been involved in their recovery. Analysis of definitions of resilience provided by participants resulted in the following synthesis of meaning; being resilient means adopting an attitude of striving to overcome the adversity caused by the experience of schizophrenia. The process of striving enables the person to learn about themselves, the effect of the schizophrenia illness on them, and how to manage it in the context of the life they want to live. Striving to overcome schizophrenia involves struggle, including repeated backwards steps and during this, the individual seeks out and uses supportive people and systems. Having then learned how to overcome and manage the challenges of the schizophrenia illness the individual is then able to apply the same resilient attitude to engage in new challenges and experiences to grow their life in ways unrelated to the illness. Through experiencing the severe adversity of schizophrenia, the person has learned how to be resilient. The presentation will describe the process for becoming resilient with schizophrenia, including factors found to be supportive and factors found to be challenging to the process. An instrument for measuring the resilience of a person diagnosed with schizophrenia is being developed from the research findings.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".