Between psychiatric medicinal products and life management: the production of autonomy in mental health by autonomous medication management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
WiththeBrazilianPsychiatricReform, Mental Health hasbeenconcernedwithovercomingandcriticizingthebiomedicaland hospital-centeredmodel, focusedondiseaseanddrugtreatment, togenerateservices in a comprehensive, territorial care network, promotingtheemancipationofsubjects. The AutonomousMedication Management (GAM) guide, aninstrumentcreatedbyalternative mental healthservices in Quebec-Canada, arrives in Brazil in 2009 as a strategyto mobilize pluralityofpositionsandchoicesregardingdrugtreatment, accessto social rights , as well as theneedtosharedecisionsandresponsibilitiesbetweenprofessionalsandusers. Therefore, thisworkhadthe general objectiveofdevelopingthe processes ofautonomyproductionofferedbythe GAM strategy in mental healthservices. As specificobjectives, analyzethe GAM userandmoderatorguidesandtheirstrategiesoffered for theproductionofautonomyandwaysoflife for mental healthusers; tomaphowthepromotionofautonomy in GAM establishesrelationshipsofknowledgeandpower in the use ofpsychiatricdrugs in the management ofthelivesof mental healthusersandtounderstandhowthepromotionofautonomy in GAM produceseffects in thedeinstitutionalizationofthese mental healthservices, basedontheparticipation in GAM groups. Thisproposalhadtwomethodologicalmomentsofresearch.The firstpart as a documentaryresearch, wherepublicationsofelectronicdatabasesthatworkonthethemeof GAM andtheUserandmoderatorguidesweregathered as a discursive corpus, problematizingtheenunciativeeffectswithregardtopublicpolicyandtreatmentoffers. in mental health. For theanalysisofthisresearch, wetookthethoughtof Michel Foucault regardingtheexplicitprogramanddiscussedthattheguides are technicalproductions, whichencourage a programthatbringstogetherautonomouswaysofliferecommendedbythe RPB. In thesecondmoment, a participatoryinterventionresearchwascarried out, withtheparticipationoftheresearcher in two GAM groups, being a PsychosocialCare Center (CAPS) and a Family Health Strategy (ESF). The data productionperiod for thesesurveyswasMarchand August 2019. The instrumentusedwasthefielddiary. Afterthecompletionofeachgroup, ananalysiswasproduced, ofFoucauldianinspiration, being in thefirstfield (CAPS), fromthetheater it waspossibletoworkonissuesrelatedtotheproductionofautonomyandtheeffectsof GAM; in thefield (ESF), fromthe meeting of a groupofwomen, weseektodealcollectivelywithmicropolitics in everydaylife, togivethesewomenaccessto new existentialterritories. Thismaster'sthesisisconcludedwiththesethreechapters in theformofarticles, whichcorrespondtothreemomentsofresearchthat GAM madepossible as a strategy in a policyexercisethatfocusedontheproductionofgreaterdegreesofautonomyandcitizenshipofthesub jectsinvolved in theresearch.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".