An inquiry into stigma within mental health care policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stigma is a major obstacle in the lives of people living with mental illness. This research uses a critical discourse analysis to examine instances of stigma embedded within mental health care policies in one Canadian mental health and addictions program. Drawing on the work of Foucault, Bourdieu and Goffman, this study focuses on the social power, domination and inequality that exist and become perpetuated within the social and institutional hospital environment. This example is used to explicate themes that are relevant for considerations of stigma in mental health care more generally. Three themes that emerged from the policy analysis are: paternalism, deviance and social exclusion. Overall recommendations for policy development are: 1) avoid over-generalization, 2) involve people with lived experience, 3) explicitly examine draft policies for the presence of potentially stigmatizing language and policy directives, and 4) emphasize the importance of the therapeutic bond when evaluating policy for stigma.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.051 | 0.096 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".