Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This article presents results from an exploratory study looking at the relationship between family disclosure of war trauma to children and their children’s play. Creative play was hypothesized to be an indicator of children’s well-being. Method: A comparison was made between a community and clinical sample of children whose families had experienced war. Twenty-one children from West and Central Africa and Algeria were administered a directed sand tray and story-telling play interview. Parents were interviewed about their children’s functioning, development, migration, war history and experience of family separation. A comparison of the children’s play and the family’s approach to the discussion of traumatic events was performed to explore the way in which disclosure was related to the children’s play. Results: The timing and manner in which trauma was disclosed to children appeared to be associated with the children’s ability to play creatively. Creative play appeared linked to a family feeling of safety to discuss their experiences and to a family’s manner of transmitting information so that children could process it. Conclusion: It is hypothesized that the timing and manner in which disclosure occurs may be more important than the disclosure or nondisclosure of war trauma in and of itself. This may have clinical implications for the treatment of children and families from multicultural contexts who have experienced war trauma.
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 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".