MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2756102478 · doi:10.31581/jbs-27.1-2.4(2017)

Depression, Stigma, and the Soul

2017· article· en· W2756102478 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Patricia McIlvride

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Bahá’í Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStigma (botany)Mental healthSoulPsychologyMental illnessFeelingPsychotherapistPerceptionEmbodied cognitionSocial stigmaFriendshipPublic healthPsychiatrySocial psychologyMedicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Major depression is a global health crisis; it is complex and confusing, and the majority of people who need help do not receive it. The stigma attached to depression and other mental illnesses is one of the greatest barriers to effective treatment. Embedded as it is in history, culture, and even in the medical model, stigma has poisoned the public’s perception of those who suffer from mental illness. Public stigma also creates “self-stigma,” thereby causing disconnections in relationships and, sometimes, a despair that can lead to self-destructive feelings or suicide. New recovery models including those offered by interpersonal neurobiology are challenging the medical model in the treatment of mental illness. By defining the mind as transcendent and both embodied and relational, new avenues of healing become possible. Health is realized when those with mental health challenges create their own recovery plans and draw on the healing power of the soul within loving and educated communities that support them with friendship, not judgment.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.014
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.362 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Bahá’í StudiesSame topicMental Health Treatment and AccessFrench-language works237,207