Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of recovery and recovery-oriented services and practices are well advanced in some parts of the world, particularly in the US and New Zealand. This paper provides a review of the literature upon which the hope for recovery is based, and explores this concept in the UK context, where it is now gaining recognition. In so doing, it identifies the background to the development of a consciousness of a possibility of recovery (both with and without mental health services support) and addresses the issues raised by the self-fulfilling concept of chronicity. It further examines the questions of measuring recovery and understanding recovery as a process or goal. It then goes on to identify themes within recovery literature and research, and to focus on recovery skills and self-care strategies for people diagnosed with schizo-phrenia, psychoses, or other serious mental illnesses. The paper concludes by addressing issues that have implications for more effective policy and practice—most notably resolving the fundamental tension between involvement with and separation from services (a process which will require a better under-standing of the role of values in the relationship between those who use and those who provide services).
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".