Bibliographic record
Abstract
Labyrinths are historical and cultural symbols that have existed for approximately 4,000 years. They are represented as both physical structures and in theories of the mind. Art Therapy practices can also be traced throughout the passage of time and often make use of symbols, archetypes, and the “unknown” in order to go deep into the psyche of individuals and groups. Many parallels thus exist between labyrinths and Art Therapy. \n\tConsidering the material nature of labyrinths and art therapy, an arts-based research approach seemed to be the most suitable method for deepening and expanding on my personal and therapeutic investigation. The results pointed to potential ways of using labyrinths metaphorically, symbolically, and practically in an Art Therapy context. The labyrinth exploration made use of numerous art materials and included four labyrinth visits and two approximately 20 x 30 ft labyrinth creations. The arts-based data resulted in the production of six 20 x 28 in. collages and one visual arts journal. The final exhibition, which included an outdoor labyrinth made with rope fixed into the grass, took place at Montreal West United Church on June 21, 2015, in honour of the Summer Solstice and as a way of sharing my research findings with the community. This paper focuses on an arts-based methodology and process-oriented investigation in order to look at the following question: How can an Arts-based exploration inform the use of labyrinths in Art Therapy?
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 | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.077 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".