MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965931146 · doi:10.1111/josi.12343

The Subtle Side of Stigma: Understanding and Reducing Mental Illness Stigma from a Contemporary Prejudice Perspective

2019· article· en· W2965931146 on OpenAlexaff
Rebecca Young, Joel O. Goldberg, C. Ward Struthers, Doug McCann, Curtis E. Phills

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Social Issues · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStigma (botany)Prejudice (legal term)Mental illnessAbleismPsychologyPerspective (graphical)Social psychologySocial stigmaSocial distanceExpression (computer science)Mental healthClinical psychologyPsychiatryMedicineSociologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Ableism, as it relates to mental illness, is a serious social issue that exists across nations and cultures. Implicit stigma caused by ableism can be especially problematic given that it is typically expressed subtly and automatically causing it to remain unnoticed and thus unchanged. This research illustrated across two studies that individuals have automatic ableist attitudes toward mental illness, yet the expression of stigma depends on the combination of their implicit and explicit attitudes. Furthermore, Study 2 was the first to demonstrate an effective intervention designed to specifically target implicit stigmatizing attitudes toward mental illness. The findings have implications for implementing social policies that serve to raise awareness of and reduce implicit stigma to ultimately improve the lives for those affected by mental illness.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.011
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.328 · 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

Citations40
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Social IssuesSame topicMental Health Treatment and AccessFrench-language works237,207