Bibliotherapy in a Library Setting: Reaching out to Vulnerable Youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bibliotherapy, as a part of expressive therapy, involves the systematic use of books to help people cope with mental, physical, emotional, or social problems. It has been widely recognized as an approach that holds great promise in helping librarians to better address emotional, behavioural and socials concerns of various groups of people. The benefits of bibliotherapeutic services such as reading groups, expanded readers’ advisory, books-on-prescription and information-on-prescription services as well as various outreach programs are well documented in the library literature. On the other hand, health professionals who work in cooperation with educators and librarians share medical records on the healing and consoling power of books. The paper will explore the role of bibliotherapy in a library setting and identify particular bibliotherapeutic schemes to be used when serving people affected by HIV/AIDS. The paper will provide an overview of the library project developed to address educational and recreational needs of the African people living with HIV/AIDS. The project was successfully implemented at the Nkosi’s Haven Library in Johannesburg, South Africa in 2010. Although the project targeted all the residents of Nkosi’s Haven, the paper will focus mostly on the part of the program developed for children and young adults. The paper will identify psychological and social factors that affect the targeted group of children within the African environment. Particularly, it will highlight a negative effect that stigmatization around the disease has on the lives of the HIV-infected individuals and their families. Within this context, bibliotherapy is seen as an effective way of reaching out and breaking the isolation of people, especially children living with HIV/AIDS. The paper will describe specific activities strategically chosen for the bibliotherapy sessions to provide a channel through which the participants of the program could analyze their behaviours or situations and address their concerns. It will also provide a list of books selected for the targeted group of children and young adults. The paper will highlight the great potential of bibliotherapy in addressing the needs of vulnerable people and thus justify the importance of implementing bibliotherapy within the library setting.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".