Ariadne’s thread: a promising new multidisciplinary tool to foster clients’ resilience throughout the rehabilitation process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Resilience plays an important role in the rehabilitation process as it helps people adapt and grow through difficulties. Ariadne's Thread is one of the few assessment and intervention tools that aim to maximize clients' resilience but its impacts have yet to be studied. PURPOSE: This study explored health professionals' perceptions regarding the impact of Ariadne's Thread on clients, on themselves and on the rehabilitation process. METHOD: An exploratory qualitative clinical research design was used to conduct semi-structured interviews with ten health professionals who used Ariadne's Thread directly or indirectly with clients. RESULTS: Health professionals perceived that Ariadne's Thread had a positive impact on clients' personal factors, especially resilience, self-knowledge, self-esteem and motivation. Moreover, as it fosters a common understanding of clients and use of their strengths and interests in interventions, Ariadne's Thread facilitates the interdisciplinary rehabilitation process. It also enables professionals to confirm their treatment approaches and facilitates therapeutic relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Ariadne's Thread is an innovative intervention and a promising way to enhance clients' resilience. Through a positive, holistic and client-centered vision, Ariadne's Thread can have a positive impact on the rehabilitation process, according to the perceptions of the health professionals in this study. Implications for rehabilitation Ariadne's Thread (AT) is one of the few assessment and intervention tools that aims to maximise clients' resilience and spirituality, and enables professionals to address important themes not usually covered in rehabilitation. Due to its effects on knowledge of the client and clients' resilience, self-esteem, strengths and spirituality, AT can enhance the rehabilitation process. Nevertheless, integrating resilience into practice requires a major paradigm shift, not only focusing on treatment results or helping clients to adapt to their disabilities, but also taking into account clients' and their families' strengths and resources.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".