Understanding resilience among transition-age youth with serious mental illness: protocol for a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Transition-age youth (16-29 years old) are disproportionately affected by the onset, impact and burden of serious mental illness (SMI; for example, depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia spectrum disorders). Emerging evidence has increasingly highlighted the concept of resilience in mental health promotion and treatment approaches for this population. A comprehensive synthesis of existing evidence is needed to enhance conceptual clarity in this area, identify knowledge gaps, and inform future research and practice. As such, the present scoping review is guided by the following questions: How has resilience been conceptualised and operationalised in the transition-age youth mental health literature? What factors influence resilience among transition-age youth with SMI, and what outcomes have been studied within the context of transition-age youth's mental health recovery? METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The present protocol will follow six key stages, in accordance with Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) established scoping review methodology and recent iterations of this framework, and has been registered with Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/rzfc5). The protocol and review process will be carried out by a multidisciplinary team in consultation with community stakeholders. A comprehensive search strategy will be conducted across multiple electronic databases to identify relevant empirical literature. Included sources will address the population of transition-age youth (16-29 years) diagnosed with SMI, the concept of resilience (in any context) and will report original research written in English. Data screening and extraction will be completed by at least two independent reviewers. Following meta-narrative review and qualitative content analyses, findings will be synthesised as a descriptive overview with tabular and graphical summaries. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: University of Toronto Health Sciences Research Ethics Board approval was obtained to complete the community stakeholder consultation stage of this review. Results will be disseminated through conference presentations, publications, and user-friendly reports and graphics.
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 | 0.119 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.076 | 0.015 |
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".