MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970162880 · doi:10.7870/cjcmh-2018-023

Social Inclusion as Freedom for Persons Living with Mental Illness

2019· article· en· W2970162880 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Phyllis Montgomery, Amy Wuest, Cheryl Forchuk, Tracy Smith‐Carrier, Momodou S. Jeng, Abraham Rudnick

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Community Mental Health · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityThunder Bay Regional Research InstituteLawson Health Research InstituteLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)Mental healthMental illnessPovertyThematic analysisSocial exclusionCommunity integrationPsychologyMeaning (existential)Social supportGerontologySociologySocial psychologyQualitative researchMedicinePsychiatryPsychotherapistPolitical sciencePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study describes the meaning of social inclusion to persons living with mental illness and poverty. Participants were recruited from health and social services where they completed the Community Integration Questionnaire (CIQ). From this sample, 46 participants attended one of three focus groups that corresponded with their self-reported CIQ scores. Thematic analysis showed that regardless of their CIQ scores, participants described freedom as both a liberating process for, and outcome of, social inclusion; freedom allows for the accumulation of health and social capital commensurate with one’s complex needs, and freedom represents success in the construction life surrounded by affirming others.

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.033
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0010.019
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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