The use of <i>recovery</i> model in forensic psychiatric settings: A Foucauldian critique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recovery, a model of care aimed at patient-led nursing practice emphasizing autonomy, hope and self-determination, has in recent years been adapted for the secure forensic psychiatric setting. Often referred to as 'secure recovery', this model suggests the aims of recovery are achievable even in highly restrictive settings. This paper will adopt a Foucauldian perspective to offer a critical analysis of recovery in forensic settings. In providing recovery-oriented care, nurses utilize pastoral power in guiding patients to institutionally preferred outcomes. Akin to Christian religious conversion, nurses engage in a neo-religious conversion of patients to a neoliberal subjectivity of homo-economicus. This path of recovery is grounded in an ethos of personal responsibility and self-government, inseparable from the greater context of neoliberal governmentality. Despite attempts at transforming forensic nursing practice into more egalitarian directions, recovery remains a coercive practice, and fails to meet the overall goals of this paradigm in secure settings.
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 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.162 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".