Review of âBehind the Rhetoric: Mental Health Recovery in Ontarioâ (Jennifer Poole)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through discussing how the recovery model has become popular within the mental health system in Ontario, Poole offers an outstanding critique of recovery’s rhetoric. Using Foucault’s concepts of “discursive formation”, Poole demonstrates that the recovery model borrows concepts from biomedical discourse, and therefore is not as new and empowering as people believe. She illustrates how the recovery model actually provides a very narrow definition of how one must “recover” from “mental illness” that serves to silence psychiatric survivors that may be critical of the recovery movement. Poole also illustrates how the recovery movement is influenced by neo-liberalism, as it has become a growing industry funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Further, she offers readers insight into the inherent ‘whiteness’ of the recovery movement, which emphasizes personal responsibility, and subscribes to western ideas of individualism and western definitions of what mental health is.
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 | 0.010 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".