Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT OBJECTIVES The long‐term objectives of the International Resilience Research Project (IRRP), were to indicate: a. how children become resilient and how service providers incorporate the promotion of resilience into their programs. The intermediary objectives were to: (1) indicate how resilience is promoted in different cultures with different age groups; (2) identify what resilience behaviors deal with and overcome the potentially damaging aspects of adversities and disasters; and (3) identify the role of adults in promoting resilience in their children and in themselves. METHOD The data from the International Resilience Research Project were reanalysed in order to link the results to subsequent research and program development, including resilience programs for children in disaster. The methodology was based on purposeful samples of selected families with children in specific age groups (0–3; 4–6; 9–11 years). Each researcher, representing 27 sites in 22 countries, received the Methodology Guidance and Manual for the Training of Interviewers, designed and developed by an International Advisory Committee; a demographic sheet; a packet of the 15 constructed situations and forms with the questions to be answered; and additional standardized tests for validation. Data were returned to the project director for scoring, with reliability checks, and qualitative data analysis at Civitan International Research Center, University of Alabama, Birmingham. RESULTS Parents and children at 27 sites in 22 countries, from Russia to Vietnam, from Namibia to Finland, from Chile to Canada, provided the data. A total of 1225 target children and their families participated, with 2204 responses from parents, and 1194 responses from children. The results of the data gathered from 1993 to 1997 were, briefly, these: (1) one‐third of the respondents exhibited resilience or its promotion; (2) by the age of 9 years, children can promote their own resilience at the same rate as adults; (3) socio‐economic status had an insignificant impact on resilience promotion and behavior; (4) boys and girls had the same frequency of resilience promotion and behavior, with girls relying more on interpersonal skills in dealing with adversities and boys relying more on pragmatic problem solving skills; and (5) cultural differences exist, but do not prevent the promotion of resilience. CONCLUSION Resilience can be promoted, and programs for children in disaster are feasible. Such programs can be adapted to children, adults, service providers, students, and those working with children in disasters. The programs can be independent or incorporated as part of existing service programs. Further, such programs can be adapted to different cultures. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE Professionals can incorporate the promotion of resilience into their service programs in regular or disaster settings. As a consequence, they can improve services and thereby the physical and mental health of children and families coping with disaster.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".