The Use of Computer Based Technology in Art Therapy with Adults who have Severe Physical Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The following qualitative research paper explores how the computer can be incorporated into an art therapeutic practice as a tool for art making when working with adults who are living with severe physical disabilities. The computer acts as a mediator that helps foster a sense of mastery, offers control over an art making process, and aids in the development of a positive self-concept when working in art therapy with adults who are living with chronic physical illness and limited mobility. Using a theoretical methodology and clinical vignettes, this paper examines how traditional techniques such as drawing, painting, and collage have been adapted using modern technology to meet the needs of clients who are living with physical disabilities. Advancements in new technology offer \nart therapists the ability to reach more individuals and diverse clinical populations. By incorporating technology into art therapy it has expanded the possibilities for clients who have physical limitations to engage in an art therapeutic process, where the artwork is created not by the therapist, but by the client. Art becomes a mirror, a container, and a witness to many personal struggles for individuals who are living with chronic illnesses.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".