Using Popular Education Groups: Can We Develop A Health Promotions Strategy for Psychiatric Consumers/Survivors?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is widely acknowledged that health derives from a myriad of factors including economics, education, housing, and social support (Sidell et al., 1997). In short, health care, although dominant in North America, represents only one approach to health. The paper suggests utilizing the theory of Paulo Freire (1971) concerning adult and popular education to support the empowerment of psychiatric consumers/survivors with regard to their health. The paper theorizes that, as psychiatric consumers are supported to 'own' their health through a process of mutual aid, they will be more able to become partners in managing not only their psychiatric illness but their health. The paper argues that it is incumbent upon traditional mental health services as well as community innovators to undertake these facilitative roles. More generally, the paper suggests that a health promotions/health determinants approach can be efficacious in improving the health of other high-risk/high-use health care groups, and that we must direct concerted efforts to reduce the marginalization experienced by so many of our citizens.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".