Describing the recovery experiences of not criminally responsible clients living in the community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study describes the recovery experiences of persons who have been found not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder (NCRMD). A qualitative descriptive methodology was used to elicit the recovery experiences of five participants. The overarching theme that arose from the data was ‘Experiencing and understanding recovery in the forensic mental health system (FMHS) as a dynamic process of change,’ and the major themes that emerged out of the overarching theme are: ‘Recovering in the FMHS,’ ‘the Critical Role of Medication,’ ‘the Significance of Relationships,’ ‘the Importance of Helping Yourself,’ and ‘Navigating Challenges.’ The results of this inquiry reveal that the participants’ experiences of recovery are greatly influenced by their involvement in the FMHS. This study offers a preliminary understanding of how recovery is experienced by NCRMD clients who reside in the community and suggests implications for clinical practice and education, as well as future research and theory.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".