MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2235955979 · doi:10.7870/cjcmh-2006-0022

The Influence of Mental Illnesses on Work Potential and Career Development

2006· article· en· W2235955979 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Rebecca Gewurtz, Bonnie Kirsh, Nora Jacobson, Susan Rappolt

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Community Mental Health · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education and Employability
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of TorontoCanadian Occupational Therapy Foundation
KeywordsMental healthWork (physics)FeelingMental illnessPsychologyProcess (computing)Grounded theoryCareer developmentPublic relationsSocial psychologySociologyPsychiatryQualitative researchEngineeringPolitical scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the recent focus on work in community mental health, there has been little discussion about how consumers come to think about their future for work and careers. Little is known about how the experience of mental illnesses affects career development. Using a grounded theory approach, this study explores how consumers come to understand their potential for work. The findings confirm the importance of work and career development and the need to address these issues in community mental health services. Specifically, the analysis highlights how the experience of living with mental illnesses results in feelings of uncertainty about the future and doubt about one's capacity for work. This paper explores how mental illnesses interrupt and disrupt career development, and analyzes the process of how consumers begin to consider possibilities for the future and rebuild their identities as workers.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Community Mental HealthSame topicHigher Education and EmployabilityFrench-language works237,207