MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2209594932 · doi:10.7202/1077264ar

Cultural considerations in play therapy with Aboriginal children in Canada

2021· article· en· W2209594932 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Megan Brady

Bibliographic record

VenueFirst Peoples Child & Family Review An Interdisciplinary Journal Honouring the Voices Perspectives and Knowledges of First Peoples · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Therapy and Development
Canadian institutionsYukon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOppressionCulturally sensitiveDistressConstruct (python library)Mental healthCulturally appropriatePsychotherapistPsychologyMedicineSociologySocial psychologyPolitical scienceFamily medicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aboriginal youth in Canada need mental health services that address culture as an integral component of treatment. Suffering and oppression caused by colonialism have led to collective distress among Aboriginal peoples and continue to impede the health and wellness of children. Counsellors have an ethical responsibility to recognize culture as an important construct that may influence a client’s healing and treatment preferences. Play therapy is a promising therapeutic approach that allows counsellors to utilize developmentally appropriate theoretical orientations and methods in treatment; however, current literature fails to provide adequate direction and guidelines for culturally competent practice. Counsellors can assume an active role in ensuring that all components of counselling are conducted in a culturally sensitive manner. More research is needed in this area, but this article explores cultural considerations that could be relevant to a child and family accessing play therapy services.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0170.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFirst Peoples Child & Family Review An Interdisciplinary Journal Honouring the Voices Perspectives and Knowledges of First PeoplesSame topicChild Therapy and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207