MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reconnecting: The Client Experience of Recovery From Psychosis

2003· article· en· W2157246236 on OpenAlexaff
Cheryl Forchuk, Jackie Jewell, Donna Tweedell, Lianne Steinnagel

Bibliographic record

VenuePerspectives In Psychiatric Care · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsHamilton Regional Laboratory Medicine ProgramSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonLawson Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeelingPerspective (graphical)PsychologyPsychosisPsychotherapistQualitative researchNaturalistic observationEthnographyRisperidoneSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PsychiatrySocial psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PROBLEM: To understand the experience of recovery from psychosis from the consumer/client perspective. METHODS: A naturalistic, qualitative design with an ethnographic method for data analysis. Subjects (N = 10) were interviewed prior to and during the initial year of treatment with clozapine or risperidone. FINDINGS: Participants described recovery from psychosis as a process that started with improvements in their thinking and feeling, and extended to a series of reconnections with their environment. These reconnections icluded staff and family. Thinking moved from being focused on their internal self to a larger world. CONCLUSION: A person's recovery from pschosis involves the entire self, bringing all components of physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual aspects of themselves into their experiences of life.

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)0.008
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations41
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerspectives In Psychiatric CareSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207