MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085767577 · doi:10.2975/32.3.2009.199.207

What does recovery mean for me? Perspectives of Canadian mental health consumers.

2009· review· en· W2085767577 on OpenAlex
Myra Piat, Judith Sabetti, A. Couture, John Sylvestre, Hélène Provencher, Janos Botschner, David A. Stayner

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatric Rehabilitation Journal · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Health and Long Term CareUniversité LavalUniversity of OttawaMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMental healthMeaning (existential)PsychologyPsychiatryPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to explore the meaning of recovery from the perspectives of consumers receiving mental health services in Canada. METHODS: Sixty semi-structured interviews were conducted with 54 mental health consumers in Montreal, Québec City and Waterloo-Guelph, Ontario. RESULTS: Two contrasting meanings of recovery emerged. The first definition strongly attached recovery to illness while the second definition linked recovery to self-determination and taking responsibility for life. CONCLUSIONS: The prominence of biomedical definitions of recovery suggests the need to find common ground between these two perspectives, if conceptualizations of recovery are to include the views of consumers who routinely experience the mental health system.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.860
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.332 · 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