MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398204748 · doi:10.1111/maq.12868

The imaginarium of self‐care: Speculative futures of hope for student mental health

2024· article· en· W4398204748 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Loa Gordon

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Anthropology Quarterly · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaWenner-Gren Foundation
KeywordsEmbodied cognitionFutures contractConversationMental healthEthnographyMental health careSelf carePsychologyHealth careSocial careSociologySocial psychologyPsychotherapistNursingMedicinePolitical scienceEpistemologyAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent ethnographies have investigated self-care as a socially driven configuration of care. This analysis engages theorizing on the imagination to expose new social dimensions of self-care in cases of mental health as embodied and communal. Based on fieldwork across Canadian universities and in conversation with students, campus wellness providers, and a group of psychiatric epidemiologists seeking to understand the mental health treatment choices of students, this article examines how these different subjects activate what I call an imaginarium of self-care. Among young adults in Canada, mounting social ills that go therapeutically unaccounted for have relocated forms of self-care into the imagination through play and world-building in ways that challenge the distinction between material and speculative healing. Attending to the imaginative dimensions of self-care makes coherent the ways that young people are grasping for hope in a world that-when embodied-resists recovery.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.105
Scholarly communication0.0120.010
Open science0.0010.010
Research integrity0.0030.006
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.430 · 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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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