MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2559727679 · doi:10.1186/s13033-016-0104-4

A review of mental health recovery programs in selected industrialized countries

2016· review· en· W2559727679 on OpenAlexaff
Harold Alan Pincus, Brigitta Spaeth‐Rublee, Grant Sara, Elliot M. Goldner, Pamela N. Prince, Parashar Ramanuj, Wolfgang Gäebel, Jürgen Zielasek, I. Großimlinghaus, Margo Wrigley, Jaap van Weeghel, Mark D. Smith, Torleif Ruud, John R. Mitchell, Lisa Patton

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Mental Health Systems · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health CentreSimon Fraser University
FundersSubstance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
KeywordsMental healthHealth administrationMental health careQuality (philosophy)Health careNursingService delivery frameworkPsychologyService (business)MedicineBusinessPublic healthPsychiatryPolitical scienceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of recovery has gained increasing attention and many mental health systems have taken steps to move towards more recovery oriented practice and service structures. This article represents a description of current recovery-oriented programs in participating countries including recovery measurement tools. Although there is growing acceptance that recovery needs to be one of the key domains of quality in mental health care, the implementation and delivery of recovery oriented services and corresponding evaluation strategies as an integral part of mental health care have been lacking.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.353
GPT teacher head0.521
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations84
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Mental Health SystemsSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207