Activating the sociological imagination to explore the boundaries of resilience research and practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditionally, the field of resilience research, especially as it relates to children and youth, has been well ensconced in the discipline of psychology. Sociologists, when they do engage with the concept, tend to do so at the level of the community. In recent years, an increasing number of scholars have called for a construction of resilience and resilience-promoting interventions that recognizes the importance of context and culture for the positive development of youth living in stressful circumstances. As such, the social ecologies surrounding a youth and the responsiveness of interventions within these ecologies are argued to be as important, if not more so, than the risk and protective factors characterizing the individual. This shift in gaze from the individual to systemic structures creates important challenges for practitioners such as school psychologists and opens up an interesting discursive space for sociologists to participate in the exploration and explication of what the concept of resilience is all about. In this article I explore how a sociological perspective can enrich the discourse and how the activation of the sociological imagination can serve to expand the boundaries of resilience research and school psychology practice.
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 | 0.067 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.200 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.039 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".