MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6989933634

Collaborative recovery model: From mental health recovery to wellbeing

2017· other· en· W6989933634 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Online (University of Wollongong) · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthLicenseMental illnessResource (disambiguation)Mental health lawQuality (philosophy)Service (business)Quality of life (healthcare)Mental health careConceptual model
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All rights reserved. Traditional mental health care emphasises living with fewer symptoms; mental health recovery may be seen as living well with illness and wellbeing as simply living well. Within this spectrum of aims, this chapter describes the evolution of the Collaborative Recovery Model (CRM) from its origins around the year 1998 until now. The CRM is a conceptual model and training/coaching resource designed to support (a) mental health service provision to become more recovery-oriented and (b) mental health organisational development consistent with mental health recovery values. Th rough training and coaching, the CRM assists mental health staff and consumers to emphasise hope for recovery, personal meaning and growth in the lives of both people living with mental illness and the staff of the services. Evaluation of this program has been supported by National Health and Medical Research Council and Australian Research Council funding. To maximise quality distribution and sustainability, Neami National, a nongovernmental mental organisation in Australia, was granted a ten-year exclusive license to use the IP from the CRM suite of programs in order to provide training services to other agencies in Australia. Since the license was granted, Neami National has provided training to over 700 practitioners in Australia, on top of the previous 2000 practitioners trained by the University of Wollongong in Australia, China and Canada. CRM involves two guiding principles and four components. The first guiding principle, 'recovery as an individual process', is underpinned by a model of psychological recovery. In the following chapter psychological recovery is described and contextualised in relation to established theories of wellbeing. The overall CRM is then described, with reference to both the staff training/coaching version referred to as "Coach" and the assisted peer support version referred to as "Flourish". The chapter concludes with reflections upon the challenges of implementation and organisational change within mental health services.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.010
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.368
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Online (University of Wollongong)French-language works237,207