MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2089512138 · doi:10.1093/deafed/enr002

The Differences in Our Similarities

2011· article· en· W2089512138 sur OpenAlexaff
Cathy J. Chovaz

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueParanormal Experiences and Beliefs
Établissements canadiensThe King's UniversityWestern University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychoanalysis

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Ten years ago, the first edition of this book gently surprised the clinical community. It was the first single volume to present mental health perspectives of diverse subcomponents of the deaf community. Clinicians who read that volume reorganized their understanding of deaf people as a singular homogeneous group and began to appreciate the wide diversity within and between groups who are deaf. It was perhaps the first formal nudge to conceptualize the word “deaf” as belonging to different cultures, different groups, and different conditions. As editor, Irene Leigh, through her exemplary work, has now raised the bar of excellence (which should be our clinical standard) even higher. In this revised and updated second edition, readers are no longer nudged but are startled into reconceptualizing, reorganizing, and, in some instances, learning for the first time about the subtle and not-so-subtle subcomponents of the deaf community. The degree to which one feels somewhat startled is perhaps reflective of the fact that psychotherapy with the deaf community has substantially lagged behind delivery of service to other groups and also that there are still relatively few of us out there doing it. As the first (and so far the only) deaf clinical psychologist in Canada, I was both energized by this book and ashamed by my lack of knowledge regarding diversity. Some of it generates a “how did I not know that?” reaction, whereas other details represent information that I have not been exposed to or perhaps never sought information about before. This book needs to be on the bookshelf of every clinician working with deaf clients and not just gathering dust. It begins with a helpful review of service delivery highlighting the ethical issues that are relevant and instrumental in working with deaf clients as well as the diversity of consumer (deaf patients) knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and experiences. Of particular importance are the issues to consider from the perspective of the deaf clinician or therapist in working with deaf clients. The second section examines psychotherapy as implemented with deaf women; lesbian, gay, and bisexual deaf individuals; hearing children of deaf parents; and people with Usher syndrome. The third section examines the critical issues brought forth in psychotherapy with deaf clients who are African American, American Indian, Asian American, and Latino. Although these chapters are written from an American perspective, there is much to be learned for clinicians and therapists from other countries and continents such as Canada and Europe in terms of the importance of cultural knowledge and sensitivity. The final section provides informative and rich descriptions of other deaf populations including deaf college students, recipients of cochlear implants, and deaf elderly clients. This book closes with a thought-provoking description of dialectical behavior therapy as an intervention option. The underlying theme throughout is the idea that deafness may unite people on some level; yet within a therapeutic context, attention must be paid to critical differences that may differentiate. Throughout this book, there are numerous and detailed client descriptions and narratives of therapeutic examples. These examples bring to life not only the rich knowledge these experienced authors are sharing with us but also the diverse tapestry woven into the humanity that represents the deaf community. Buy this book, read it, and then read it again.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,031
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,105

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,012
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,002
Communication savante0,0030,003
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0310,003

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,104
Tête enseignante GPT0,384
Écart entre enseignants0,279 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentnon

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf EducationMême sujetParanormal Experiences and BeliefsTravaux en français237 207