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 OpenAlexafffundabout
Myra Piat, Judith Sabetti, A. Couture, John Sylvestre, Hélène Provencher, Janos Botschner, David A. Stayner

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.130
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

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 designQualitative
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

Citations93
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychiatric Rehabilitation JournalSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207