Cross-cultural Comparison of Recovery College Implementation Between Japan and England: Corpus-based Discourse Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recovery Colleges (RCs) are mental health learning communities, operated in 28 countries across cultures. However, the RC operational model is informed by Western countries sharing similar cultural characteristics such as individualism and short-term orientation. How RC operational model needs to be adapted to non-Western culture remains unknown. We investigated how RCs are introduced to the public in two countries with contrasting cultural characteristics: Japan (collectivism, long-term) and England (individualism, short-term). Corpus-based discourse analysis on 22,827 words from promotional texts (13 RCs in Japan, 61 in England) revealed that both countries emphasised mental illness lived experiences. In Japan, the focus was on the relational and long-term aspects of recovery. In England, the focus was on personal learning and skill acquisition. People attending RCs in Japan may anticipate experiencing collectivistic and long-term elements, which are viewed unfavourably in the operational model. Findings suggest refinements to the operational model to include under-represented cultural characteristics. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11469-024-01356-3.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".