MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1607360345

Using Reasons for Living to Connect to American Indian Healing Traditions

2002· article· en· W1607360345 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Crofoot Graham, Lillian Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Mental healthPsychologyIndian countrySocial psychologyPsychotherapistHistoryPolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Responding to high rates of suicide for American Indian youth, helping professionals often struggle to connect healing traditions from American Indian cultures to tools from European psychology. The differences between American Indian healing and European therapy can be vast. Finding connections or building bridges between these two perspectives may be more difficult than it appears (Duran & Duran, 1995). One method to bring together these worldviews is to use the Reasons for Living Questionnaire (RFL, Linehan, Goldstein, Nielsen, & Chiles, 1983); the Reasons for Living Inventory for Adolescents (RFL-A, Osman, Downs, Kopper, Barios, Besett, Linehan, Baker, & Osman, 1998), or other psychological assessments developed using the RFL as a foundation. Reasons for Living (RFL) assessments have emerged as powerful strength based tools for assessing suicide risk (Range & Knott, 1997). RFL and RFL-A factors link to a relational worldview common to most American Indian people. A relational worldview considers a balance between forces often identified as spirit, context, mind, and body (Cross, 1998). Using RFL or RFL-A in suicide assessments allows practitioners to assess where youth may be out of balance in one or more of the four traditional areas: spirit, context, mind, and body. This may assist specific referrals to culturally appropriate healing. RFL and RFL-A assessments could be augmented to improve their correspondence to the relational worldview. ********** Western approaches to care have not been widely embraced by American Indian populations, and almost any type of mental health treatment tends to have disappointing results with American Indians (Husted, Johnson, & Redwing, 1995). Meanwhile, American Indian communities and mental health practitioners acknowledge that the need for mental health treatment is high. Perhaps the most dramatic illustration of this need is the high rate of suicide among American Indian youth. This rate is well established and has continued for decades to be more than double the national rate for non-Indian youth (Grossman, Milligan, & Deyo, 1991). To understand American Indian perspectives on causes for the high rate of youth suicide and the need for traditional healing, it will be important to review American Indian history. To describe some of the most common American Indian perspectives of wellness and balance, the relational worldview (Cross, 1998) will be presented. Next, tools for suicide assessment especially the Reasons for Living Questionnaire (RFL, Linehan, Goldstein, Nielsen, & Chiles, 1983) and the related Reasons for Living Inventory for Adolescents (RFL-A, Osman, Downs, Kopper, Barrios, Besett, Linehan, Baker, & Osman, 1998) will be presented. The RFL and RFL-A will be linked to the relational worldview and indigenous healing approaches. Finally, areas where the reasons for living assessments could be further developed for use with American Indian adolescents will be discussed along with cultural guidelines for assessment and intervention with potentially suicidal American Indian youth. History The history of American Indian people is survival in the face of mass destruction. Estimates about the number of American Indians in North American before European contact range from two million to as many as 18 million (Shoemaker, 1999). There were at least 600 different indigenous groups on the scene and there were probably between five and ten million American Indians in what are now the United States and Canada (Nichols, 1998). Indigenous people in North America lived in cities and villages, long houses and kivas, and had social organizations including families, clans, and nations. Millions of people and their homes, families and nations had to be eliminated to make room for European colonization. Colonization destroyed and demeaned traditional ways of indigenous people (Duran & Duran, 1995). …

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations39
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sociology & Social WelfareSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207