Narrative Therapy, Older Adults, and Group Work?: Practice, Research, and Recommendations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, the authors report on a qualitative study that explored the use of narrative therapy with a diverse group of older adults dealing with mental health and substance misuse issues. Narrative therapy supports individuals to critically assess their lives and develop alternative and empowering life stories that aim to keep the problem in its place. Although the literature suggests this is a promising intervention for individuals, there is a lack of research on narrative therapy and group work. Aiming to address this gap, the authors developed and researched a narrative therapy group for older adults coping with mental health and substance misuse issues in Toronto, Canada. Taking an ethnographic approach, field notes and interviews provided rich data on how, when, and for whom, such a group could be beneficial. Findings contribute to the literature on group work, older adults, and narrative 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it