Exploration of the Perspectives of Persons With Schizophrenia Regarding Quality of Life
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study is the first phase of a two-phase study aimed at exploring the perspectives of consumers with schizophrenia regarding quality of life and developing a quality-of-life assessment that addresses factors experienced as important by consumers. METHOD: Focus groups were used to explore the perspectives of 35 persons with schizophrenia regarding the meaning of quality of life and factors important to quality of life. RESULTS: Seven major factors that had an impact on quality of life resulted from inductive analysis, including activity, social interaction, time, disclosure, "being normal," finances, and management of illness. These factors relate to three overall themes: managing time, connecting and belonging, and making choices and maintaining control. CONCLUSIONS: Although the findings confirm the importance of factors included in existing quality-of-life assessments, they also highlight the need to look at new dimensions of commonly included factors and to include other factors. The findings support beliefs regarding occupation that are central to occupational therapy and the use of occupation as means and ends of therapy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it