Listening for Recovery: The Vocational Success of People Living with Mental Illness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mental health occupational therapists work with some individuals who want employment but who are not successful at finding or keeping a job. PURPOSE: The purpose of this qualitative study was to suggest factors contributing to vocational success. METHOD: The investigators interviewed 8 participants who were recovering from psychosis. The interview texts were coded and analyzed for emerging themes. RESULTS: Three themes emerged that describe how the participants achieved vocational success: self-assessing their mental health regularly, actively working to maintain and improve their mental health, and striving to feel connected to others at work. The results are consistent with previous studies that found that a positive fit between a worker and the workplace is linked to the worker feeling connected to and valued by the workplace. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This study suggests that supporting the ways individuals assess and promote their own mental health and recovery will contribute to their success at work. Occupational therapists are urged to help people find workplaces where they feel encouraged and comfortable as this appears to be an important factor in vocational success.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".