Bibliographic record
Abstract
This fourth issue could equally have been allocated the theme of 'health'. Particularly since the Alma-Ata Declaration (1978) - celebrating its thirtieth year and the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion (1986) both see health 'as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being'. Optimum health thus means achieving a balance across all of the areas of physical, mental and social well-being. This requires living in a social system where one has access to the services, programs and supports to arrive in this complete state. It is clear that physical and mental health are not treated as level playing fields, not all social systems give equal attention to all of these components, and there are huge cultural variations and socially determining factors that shape national and international differences.Building an ethical health care system - a goal we ought to continue to debate and discuss - means giving equal attention to physical, mental and social well-being. It means providing adequate human and financial resources and access to all three domains. Health, both mental and physical, is the foundation of life. Without discussion and debate about the alternative directions that may need to be taken in mental health care we risk overlooking one of the most central aspects of our being as humans in our social world. This final issue for 2008 specifically tackles the theme of 'mental health'. It explores the diffuse nature of the concept, the potential for it to confuse and it provides a range of perspectives on what elements of the current debate need to be refused.Contributors were asked to present narrative perspectives and share their research, personal experiences or dabble in creativity on the topic of mental health and narrative. Narrative has gained enormous attention in social and health sciences research since the 1980s and this has partly been because it is an approach that facilitates the inclusion of marginalised voices. As research has developed within narrative, the field of counter narratives has also emerged. There is greater inclusion now of personal and alternative perspectives in both research and policy sectors that refuse dominant biomedical and psychiatric explanations of mental illnesses. Many suggest that the search by science for singular biological causes of mental illnesses like depression, schizophrenia and bipolar is no longer relevant to the complex multiple world that we live in. There is no singular cause. Mental illness is not always biologically caused and so we require multiple perspectives to appreciate and understand these complex phenomena.A range of voices comes together in this issue from academia (O'Brien & Fullagar, Canning, Baker et al., Nicki, Lawn, Brown) to those touched directly by living with a family member with a mental illness (Naimet), others who work with people affected by mental illnesses (Brown, Lawn), or those who are direct sufferers and survivors (Morrison). Personal accounts share some of the trials and tribulations of being sick and getting well and sometimes living with someone who is sick and never gets well. Contributors deal with different topics and issues related to the theme of mental health, yet, they all exhibit elements in common. Some refuse poorly defined, diffuse terms like 'recovery,' others examine the confusion between social determinants of mental health and the relationship of this with biological causes of mental illnesses, while there are contributors who question diagnostic labels and their relevance particularly to borderline and multiple personality disorders. All of these articles express caution at accepting the dominant stories told about mental health and our need to engage in this important topic.The two short stories illustrate the fusion of personal and fictional parts of storytelling (Stone, Nanai). A selection of the poetry within the issue is also by people who identify as having a mental illness or by parents, carers or friends of those people (Pankhurst, Buchannan, Stone, Fox). …
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 | 0.053 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.082 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.041 | 0.061 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".