MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019623561 · doi:10.1002/pmh.82

Social relationships in schizophrenia: A review

2009· review· en· W2019623561 on OpenAlexaff
Amy Kingston Stevens, Judith McNichol, Lílian Magalhães

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonality and Mental Health · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLPsychologyPsycINFOSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Clinical psychologyQuality of life (healthcare)Life satisfactionSocial skillsInterpersonal relationshipPsychological interventionPopulationStigma (botany)MEDLINEPsychiatryPsychotherapistMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Difficulties with social occupations are among the most common for individuals with schizophrenia. The deficits related to social functioning have been shown to decrease the quality of life (QOL) and life satisfaction for individuals in this population. A critical review of the literature was completed in order to examine the factors that effect and impact social engagement, QOL and life satisfaction for individuals with schizophrenia. A comprehensive search of the CINAHL, PsycINFO and PubMed databases was conducted for articles published during the period of 1997–2007. From 156 peer‐reviewed articles meeting the search criteria, 41 were selected for analysis and included in the review. The main factors effecting QOL and life satisfaction that emerged from the literature include the following: interpersonal relationship status, employment status, effects of stigma, neuro‐cognitive skills and functioning, as well as effectiveness of interventions. The review suggests that individuals with a diagnosis of schizophrenia experience decreased QOL and social satisfaction in social relationships as a result of these factors. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.968

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations29
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePersonality and Mental HealthSame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207