Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reviews evolution of the recovery paradigm in Canadian mental health. We first trace the origins and development of the recovery concept through the literature, followed by an examination of how the recovery concept has been implemented in national and provincial mental health policy since publication of the 2006 Kirby Commission Report. Based on consultations with Canadian policymakers, and an examination of available policy documents, we explore how the dual theme of 'recovery' and 'well-being', adopted by the Mental Health Commission of Canada in its 2009 strategy: Toward Recovery and Well-being - A Framework For a Mental Health Strategy has subsequently played out in mental health policymaking at the provincial level. Findings reveal mixed support for recovery as a guiding principle for mental health reform in Canada. While policies in some provinces reflect widespread support for recovery, and strong identification with the aspirations of the consumer movement; other provinces have shifted to population-based, wellness paradigms that privilege evidence-based services and professional expertise. The recognition of social equality for people who experience mental illness emerges as an important value in Canadian mental health policy, cutting across the conceptual divide between recovery and well-being.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".