MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240017599 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2016.24480

Peer Support

2016· article· en· W4240017599 on OpenAlexaffabout
Cheryl Forchuk, Michelle Solomon, Tazim Viran

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursingPsychologyMedicineMedical educationBusinessPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Mental Health Commission of Canada defines peer support as "a supportive relationship between people who have a lived experience in common … in relation to a mental health challenge or illness … related to their own mental health or that of a loved one" (Sunderland et al. 2013: 11). In Ontario, a key resource for peer support is the Ontario Peer Development Initiative (OPDI), which is an umbrella organization of mental health Consumer/Survivor Initiatives (CSIs) and peer support organizations across the province of Ontario. Member organizations are run by and for people with lived experience of a mental health or addiction issue and provide a wide range of services and activities within their communities. The central tenet of member organizations is the common understanding that people can and do recover with the proper supports in place and that peer support is integral to successful recovery. Nationally, Peer Support Accreditation and Certification Canada has recently been established. The relatively new national organization focuses on training and accrediting peer support workers. This paper focuses on a range of diverse peer support groups and CSIs that operate in London and surrounding areas.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.770
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.012

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 head0.190
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.257 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207