MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049728441 · doi:10.2975/31.2.2007.125.130

Early psychosis, activity performance and social participation: A conceptual model to guide rehabilitation and recovery.

2007· article· en· W2049728441 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Harriet Woodside, Terry Krupa, Karen Pocock

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatric Rehabilitation Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHamilton Health Sciences
KeywordsConstructivist grounded theoryRehabilitationConceptual modelPsychologyGrounded theoryContext (archaeology)Psychiatric rehabilitationIntervention (counseling)NegotiationSet (abstract data type)Applied psychologyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyQualitative researchPsychotherapistPsychiatryMental healthMental illnessSociologyComputer scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we present a conceptual model focusing on activity performance and social participation of individuals in the period prior to their first acute episodes of psychosis. The model was developed using the constructivist grounded theory method. Data from interviews and documents was collected from 25 primary participants. Interviews were also conducted with 15 members of the participants' support networks and six experts in the field of early psychosis and rehabilitation. The model illustrates how the core constructs of activity performance and social participation are set against the natural context and influenced by shifts in three determinants: faltering personal capacities, negotiating for success and risk factors. The model suggests rehabilitation and recovery practices in early intervention work.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.010
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations25
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychiatric Rehabilitation JournalSame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207