The Use of Expressive Arts Therapy in Understanding Psychological Issues of Juvenile Delinquency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This phenomenological research design of qualitative study was conducted to understand the experiences of creative relationship during Expressive Arts Therapy group counseling session. A total of seven girls between the ages of 12-18 years who have been involved in juvenile delinquent behaviors were selected using purposive sampling groups. Interviews, observations and document analysis were conducted for data collection. Validity and reliability of the process were done through triangulation, peer review and audit trail. Data analysis was made to give overall meaning, meaning of discrimination unit, initial transfer of meaning units, transfer units psychological meaning, structure of individual psychology, and general psychological structure. The results showed that there are some psychological issues that have to be shared and expressed by all subjects in the study. The study participants shared their feelings such as anger, revenge, hatred, guilt and regret, disappointment and sadness, rebellious, begging for affection, looking for happiness, satisfaction and enjoyment of life, issues of low self-esteem and other issues concerning trauma and emotional disorders that have been experienced in their lives. In conclusion, this study provides some implications in terms of techniques and practices of counseling in Malaysia and the need for further research.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".