A complicated grief intervention model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Complicated grief refers to a prolonged state of grief and indicates the inability of the client to incorporate the death into his or her life. Few social workers in South Africa assess the possibility of complicated grief as a contributing factor to impaired social functioning. This can be as a result of limited knowledge, ignorance and/or insufficient skills on the part of the social worker to assess and identify complicated grief. In this article, the researchers tabulate some of the models and approaches to bereavement and discusses its applicability to complicated grief. Specific attention is given to the Dual Process Model (Stroebe & Schut 1999) and the Task-Centred approach (a social work approach to therapy) in an attempt to develop a model for complicated grief intervention. This article furthermore proposes the Complicated Grief Intervention Model through the integration of the Dual Process Model and the Task-Centred approach while drawing on intervention techniques from other therapeutic approaches.OpsommingGekompliseerde rou verwys na ‘n verlengde staat van rou en impliseer ‘n onvermoë by die klient om die dood van ‘n geliefde in sy/haar lewe te integreer. Gekompliseerde rou word deur min maatskaplike werkers as bydraende faktor tot verlaagde maatskaplike funksionering geassesseer. Dit kan toegeskryf word aan beperkte kennis, ignorering van/of ontoereikende vaardighede by die maatskaplike werker in die identifisering en assessering van gekompliseerde rou. Die outeurs tabuleer sommige van die rouberadingsmodelle en –benaderings in hierdie artikel en bespreek die toepaslikheid daarvan op gekompliseerde rou. Spesifieke aandag word aan die Tweeledige Prosesmodel (Dual Process Model) (Stroebe & Schut 1999) verleen, asook aan die taakgesentreerde benadering (‘n maatskaplike werkbenadering) in ‘n poging om ‘n model te ontwikkel vir gekompliseerde rou intervensie. Die artikel beveel aan dat die Gekompliseerde Rou Intervensie Model (GRIM) deur middel van die integrasie van die Tweeledige Prosesmodel en die taakgesentreerde maatskaplike werkbenadering aangebied word, terwyl intervensietegnieke van verskeie terapeutiese benaderings benut word.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.004 |
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".