Communication Between People With Schizophrenia and Their Medical Professionals: A Participatory Research Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors describe a participatory research project undertaken by a group of people with schizophrenia under the guidance of a university researcher. Participatory research involves members of the research group in meaningful participation in all stages of the research process. In this study, group members chose the topic-experiences with medical professionals-and method of data collection-in-depth interviews that they conducted with each other. They developed and performed a readers' theater presentation of the results and their recommendations for how they would like to be treated by medical professionals. The results indicate that good communication with medical professionals is essential to people with schizophrenia; it helps them accept the fact that they are ill and learn to live with the illness. The research offered a transformative experience to group members and is contributing to change in the practice of health care for people with severe mental illnesses.
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 | 0.059 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".