MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4388337158 · doi:10.5206/ijoh.2023.3.15670

Homelessness and Mental Illness: Using Participatory Action Research to Inform Mental Health Counseling

2023· article· en· W4388337158 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John H. Rogers, Amanda Evans

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal on Homelessness · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental illnessParticipatory action researchMental healthAgency (philosophy)Context (archaeology)PsychologySense of agencyLived experienceMeaning (existential)Action (physics)Citizen journalismInterpretative phenomenological analysisPsychotherapistQualitative researchPsychiatrySocial psychologySociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Homelessness and mental illness frequently occur together. Individuals who have a mental illness and are homeless may experience a range of challenges and are often underserved by behavioral health professionals. This study used Participatory Action Research to form a working group (n=6), which met at a homeless shelter located in a small city in the United States (U.S) mid-Atlantic region, to generate insights and responses to the challenges they had encountered. The authors posed several research questions in the context of lived experiences of individuals who experience homelessness and mental illness. The researchers used Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis to interpret the data in light of these questions. We generated four key themes: the trauma of homelessness and mental illness, the power of personal connection, personal agency, and achievement, and meaning through action. For mental health counselors, suggestions include incorporating a trauma-informed framework, minimal turnover in counselor coverage, and a client-centered approach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.107
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.568

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1070.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0190.022
Scholarly communication0.0100.008
Open science0.0040.019
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.271
GPT teacher head0.553
Teacher spread0.282 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal on Homelessness→Same topicHomelessness and Social Issues→French-language works237,207→