MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889520715 · doi:10.7870/cjcmh-2017-030

The Problem with “Community” in the Mental Health Field

2017· article· en· W2889520715 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Tyler Frederick, Lesley A. Tarasoff, Jijian Voronka, Lucy Costa, Sean A. Kidd

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Community Mental Health · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of WindsorUniversity of TorontoOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthMeaning (existential)Context (archaeology)Field (mathematics)PoliticsEconomic JusticeMiddle Eastern Mental Health Issues & SyndromesSociologyCommunity integrationCriminal justiceSocial justiceMental health lawPsychologyPsychiatryPublic relationsCriminologyPolitical scienceMedicinePsychotherapistGeographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of “community” is ubiquitous in mental health policy, research, and practice in Canada; however, its meaning is rarely defined. In this paper, we consider the positioning of “community” within the Canadian historical and political mental health context and reveal that it contrasts with the lived experiences of people with psychiatric disabilities. We argue that mental health policy, research, and practice should move away from the term community in favour of a framework that addresses basic needs, disability justice, intersecting social identities, and the structural forces that impact the lives of people with psychiatric disabilities as they “recover” in settings outside of hospital.

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)0.054
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.705
Threshold uncertainty score0.594

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0540.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0410.162
Scholarly communication0.0230.022
Open science0.0070.025
Research integrity0.0110.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.258
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.195 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Community Mental HealthSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207