MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898796857 · doi:10.7939/r38s4k06q

Lessons on Recovery through Examination of a Peer-Based Housing Support Project

2016· article· en· W2898796857 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Giri R. Puligandla

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Alberta Library · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Peer-based housing support for people with severe mental illness who are at risk of homelessness is a promising, though understudied, intervention approach. OBJECTIVES: To examine how well an Edmonton pilot project implementing peer-based housing supports addressed factors contributing to independent living and recovery as described within its program design and logic model. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of case files of 5 former clients described activities delivered by peer workers and other pilot project staff. Semi-structured interviews with 4 former clients and 8 mental health therapists characterized factors associated with the expected outcomes in the logic model. Project delivery was compared to the factors that were identified in the interviews to assess the extent to which delivery could achieve the intended outcomes. RESULTS: Case files provided evidence that activities of peer workers not only addressed areas in the program design but extended beyond it, including issues related to medications, wellness, and victimization, among others. Interview data revealed additional factors believed to influence the outcomes of interest. Contrary to the project’s logic model, these factors could be better organized as a “Recovery Wheel” ecological framework with five domains: personal, intrapersonal, interpersonal, institutional, and societal. CONCLUSION: The ecological framework that emerged from this study consolidates and highlights factors identified in published recovery models and reveals others, specifically in the personal domain (cognition, personality, upbringing, and history), that have not previously been included. Results suggest that peer workers contribute to recovery and independent living through application of their lived experience. Further research is required to confirm and expand the Recovery Wheel with a larger and more diverse sample, and to explore how lived experience can be mobilized to promote recovery.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.007
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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Alberta LibrarySame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207