Supporting the Development of a Strengths-Based Narrative: Applying the Leisure and Well-Being Model in Outpatient Mental Health Services
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Strengths-based practice emphasizes the discovery, development, and expression of a variety of strengths as a significant strategy for well-being (Jones-Smith, 2014). The notion of recovery in mental health services refers to living well with mental illness and is often based in creating a self-narrative that includes mental illness but that is not defined by it, or in other words creating a self-narrative of strengths (Onken, Craig, Ridgway, Ralph, & Cook, 2007). The Leisure and Well-Being Model (LWM) (Carruthers & Hood, 2007; Hood & Carruthers, 2007) provides direction for the development of strengths-based therapeutic recreation (TR) programs and this article will describe the development, implementation, and evaluation plan for a TR program designed to address one of the distal goals of the LWM, “cultivation and expression of one’s full potential including strengths, capacities and assets” (Carruthers & Hood, 2007, p. 280) in outpatient mental health services. The literature on recovery in mental health treatment, strengths-based practice, positive psychology and narrative therapy provided the conceptual framework for the application of the LWM to TR services. The resultant program, entitled Be Your Best Self, is described in some detail and the ongoing plans for development and evaluation research are articulated.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it