Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Purpose-driven studies examining the relationship between ethnicity, culture, and recovery are absent from the empirical literature. As such, the overall aim of this study was to examine ethno-racial variations in recovery perspectives. Specific objectives consist of comparing and contrasting ethno-racial variations in 1) definitions of recovery, 2) barriers to recovery, and 3) facilitators of recovery. METHODS: We recruited people with severe mental illness from 2 broad ethno-racial groups (Caribbean-Canadian and Euro-Canadian) to partake in a qualitative interview on recovery (n = 47). Participants were asked to give their own definitions of recovery, as well as self-perceived barriers and facilitators. Interview transcripts were then subjected to thematic analysis. We compared and contrasted the distribution and salience of emerging themes between the Euro-Canadian and Caribbean-Canadian participants. RESULTS: Recovery was consistently defined as a gradual process involving progress in key life domains including employment, social engagement, and community participation by both groups. This was underpinned by a growing future orientation. Stigma, financial strain, and psychiatric hospitalization were considered major barriers to recovery in both groups. Participants from both groups generally considered stated definitions of recovery to be simultaneous facilitators of recovery-employment and social engagement being the most frequently mentioned. God and religion were key facilitators for the Caribbean-Canadian group but not for Euro-Canadians. CONCLUSIONS: Definitions, barriers, and facilitators to recovery were generally shared among our sample, regardless of ethno-racial status, with the exception of God and religion.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".