MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114184801 · doi:10.1606/1044-3894.2456

Experiences of Adults Abused as Children after Discharge from Inpatient Treatment: Informal Social Support and Self-Care Practices Related to Trauma Recovery

2005· article· en· W2114184801 on OpenAlexaff
Kim Harper, Carol Stalker, Sally Palmer, Sue Gadbois

Bibliographic record

VenueFamilies in Society The Journal of Contemporary Social Services · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityWilfrid Laurier UniversityCommunity Based Research Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial supportSexual abuseMental healthPsychologyQualitative researchPerceptionFamily supportEmotional supportClinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatrySuicide preventionPoison controlPsychotherapistMedical emergencyPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This qualitative study explored adults' perceptions of experiences that were helpful and unhelpful to their recovery from the traumatic effects of childhood physical and sexual abuse. The authors conducted in-depth interviews with 30 participants approximately 6 months after discharge from an inpatient trauma treatment program. Participants reported that barriers to recovery postdischarge were lack of follow-up support immediately after discharge, social isolation, lack of friends, problems with partners, and lack of emotional support from family members. Facilitating factors were concrete support from family and friends; emotional support, particularly from friends; developing a social network unrelated to the abuse history; and continuing self-care strategies learned in the inpatient program. Implications for community-based mental health professionals are discussed.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.267 · 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
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

Citations12
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFamilies in Society The Journal of Contemporary Social ServicesSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207