Resilience and Successful Community Reintegration among Female Forensic Psychiatric Patients: A Preliminary Investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on resiliency and recovery in forensic psychiatric patients is still limited. Information pertaining to factors associated with successful community reintegration would contribute to a more comprehensive assessment of functioning and informed treatment planning that fits within a recovery approach of service provision. Using a retrospective design involving file reviews and a 3-year follow-up period, the authors investigated the rate of successful/unsuccessful community reintegration (defined by the presence or absence of an absolute discharge/readmission to hospital) in female forensic psychiatric patients (N = 48). The study evaluated the extent to which the risk and protective factors captured in the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START) predicted a range of positive and negative outcomes in the study sample. Results showed that 47.9% of the women qualified as having successfully reintegrated into the community, with the remaining 52.1% qualifying as still being in recovery. Successful individuals possessed significantly more protective factors and significantly fewer risk factors than individuals still in recovery. Furthermore, both the vulnerability and the strength scale of the START demonstrated good predictive validity, however we did not find evidence of incremental validity of the strength scale.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".