Recovery and severe mental illness: The role of romantic relationships, intimacy, and sexuality.
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
OBJECTIVE: The overall aim of this article is to examine the self-defined role of romantic relationships, intimacy and sexuality in recovery from severe mental illness. METHOD: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 35 people with severe mental illness, accompanied by participant observation. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: The vast majority of participants considered a supportive relationship that was emotionally or sexually intimate to be a key facilitator and indicator of recovery. However, only a small minority of participants were actually in such a relationship. Participants reported numerous barriers to forming and maintaining such relationships such as financial strain and enduring stigma against people with mental illness. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Addressing relational and intimate needs have not been a focus of traditional psychiatric services. As such, some form of "supported dating" within the field of psychosocial rehabilitation may be an essential development to foster an oft-overlooked but important aspect of recovery. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 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