A Pilot Study of the Experience of Participating in a Therapeutic Touch Practice Group
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
This pilot study explored the experience of participating in a Therapeutic Touch practice group. A qualitative descriptive-exploratory method was used, involving 12 members of practice groups in Ontario and British Columbia, Canada. Analysis of the data using an extraction-synthesis process yielded four themes: (a) learning with others through sharing and hands-on experience is valued; (b) connecting with a network of supportive relationships that sustain self and Therapeutic Touch practice; (c) comfort-discomfort arising with self, others, or ideas; and (d) meaningful changes emerge while experiencing group energy and Therapeutic Touch. The findings expand current knowledge about the positive aspects of participating in practice groups and provide a beginning understanding of member discomfort, which had not been previously reported. This knowledge will be useful to Therapeutic Touch organizations, practice group leaders, and group members. It will also guide health care agencies and practitioners of other healing modalities who may be considering establishing practice groups.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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