MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2316204204 · doi:10.5539/res.v8n2p133

Heart Drawing: A New Diagnostic Tool

2016· article· en· W2316204204 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Therapy and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeelingAffect (linguistics)PsychologyClass (philosophy)Developmental psychologySocial psychologyCommunicationArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p class="Standard">This paper presents a methodology for assessing a child’s capacity to identify primary affective states, affect regulation, and affective experiences in a non-threatening manner. The methodology can be used with children from ages three years thru age nineteen years.</p><p class="Standard">Background</p><p class="Standard">A thorough assessment includes an evaluation of a person’s capacity to identify and regulate emotions. Affect regulation requires the capacity to identify internal experiences of emotions. The Heart Drawing was developed as a non-threatening method for assessing a child’s capacity to identify emotions. Most children enjoy drawing and the Heart Drawing is usually experienced by the child as non-threatening and enjoyable.</p><p class="Standard">The Heart Drawing is a new, easy to use, and efficient tool that allows the clinician to assess a child’s affect regulation functioning, affective range, and experience in a non-threatening manner. It can also be used to assess a child’s insightfulness and capacity to identify internal affective experiences.</p><p class="Standard">Method</p><p class="Standard">The child is asked to select colors for the feelings expressive of mad, sad, glad, and scared from a group of nine primary colors. The child is then asked to draw a heart and to fill in the heart with the amount of each feeling that the child usually feels.</p><p class="Standard">Results</p><p class="Standard">Administration and discussion usually takes ten to fifteen minutes.</p><p class="Standard">Conclusion</p><p class="Standard">The article presents examples of drawings by children with various diagnoses and conditions along with a normative drawing for comparison. The methodology has been found to be very helpful in assessing a child’s emotional status and capacity to regulate emotions.</p><p>Key Practitioner Message</p><p>1) Emotional regulation and the capacity to identify emotions is important for evaluation and treatment.</p><p>2) Projective drawing methods can be useful in assessing a person’s ability to identify and regulate emotions.</p><p>3) The Heart Drawing is an efficient and effective method for assessing a person’s capacity to identify and regulate emotions.</p>

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.338
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.302 · 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