MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046405537 · doi:10.1080/01609510802290966

The Helpfulness of Holistic Arts–Based Group Work with Children Living in Foster Care

2009· article· en· W2046405537 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Work With Groups · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Therapy and Development
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHelpfulnessFoster careGroup workThe artsPsychologyWork (physics)Group livingGroup (periodic table)SociologyNursingPsychotherapistMedicineVisual artsSocial psychologyPedagogyEngineeringArtEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article discusses practice-based research that is exploring the helpfulness of holistic arts–based group work for the development of self-awareness and self-esteem in children living in foster care. The group program is arts based and encourages children to explore their beliefs, feelings, and behaviors. Examples of group exercises are provided, challenges in developing this group program are discussed, and qualitative research findings are presented, which are based on the analysis of fifteen 6-week groups. Findings indicate that children learned new skills, improved coping abilities, connected with feelings, and felt more positive. Practitioners are encouraged to consider how arts-based group work can help children in care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.185
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it