Exploring romantic need as part of mental health social care practice
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to form strong relationships is viewed as central to mental health recovery. Few studies have explored the experiences of people with mental health problems in forming or maintaining romantic relationships. Our study addressed this gap through conducting focus groups with ten people with mental health problems, six carers and six professionals. All three participant groups considered romantic relationships to be important aspects of wellbeing and lamented this gap in the lives of people with mental health problems. Service users and carers perceived the physicality and outward trappings of ‘being mentally ill,’ including treatment side effects and unemployment to impact negatively on romantic relationships. Service users reported self and societal stigma as a major barrier to relationships. Carers and professionals focused on vulnerability and risks. Professionals stated that they rarely supported people with mental health problems with their romantic relationships and were uneasy about discussing sexual intimacy.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it