Opening the Conversation: An Investigation into the Interface of Drama Therapy, Intergenerational Trauma, and Aboriginal Youth of Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research paper aims to summarize an investigation that the researcher carried out by exploring the question: How can Intergenerational Trauma experienced by Aboriginal Youth be addressed within the context of Drama Therapy? The paper includes a literature review on the fundamental elements of Drama Therapy as a modality, trauma experienced as an intergenerational phenomenon, and an existing snapshot of Aboriginal youth in Canada from a historical-bibliographical lens. A discussion of intersections between the triangulation of population (Aboriginal Youth), issue (Intergenerational Trauma), and potential intervention (Drama Therapy) is then presented. This is followed by recommendations for moving forward with the momentum for action in this proposed scenario. The goal of this research seeks to yield an understanding of the need for such an intervention to exist and to provide a basis of rationale for the motivation of potential stakeholders to pursue such interest. Further, the researcher strives toward an illumination of the significance of contribution from the Creative Arts Therapies in the conversation and incentive for change concerning the findings from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada in this vein.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.047 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".