MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326421665 · doi:10.1037/h0094583

LGBTQ women and mental health “recovery”.

2012· article· en· W2326421665 on OpenAlexaff
Amlan Das

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatric Rehabilitation Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthTransgenderLesbianQueerPsychologyQueer theoryGrounded theoryPsychotherapistGender studiesSociologyQualitative researchPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated what women identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or queer (LGBTQ) think about mental health "recovery." METHOD: We used a grounded theory analysis of 13 participant interviews. RESULTS: Three novel critiques emerged, including rejection of mental health "recovery" based on participants' identities as "mad," sexual assault survivors, and/or LGBTQ. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: While a medicalized interpretation of "recovery" may not work for some women, alternative understandings, such as using "recovery" to heal from discrimination and demand systemic changes, have liberatory potential. It is essential that supporters discern and utilize each woman's chosen language.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.274
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.350 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychiatric Rehabilitation JournalSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207