The Caregiver’s Wandering: The Quest for Identity Integration in the Workplace Using Reflection, Talking Circles, and Creative Expression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
These workshops are inspired by the observations of the author in the field of mental health services delivery. The way the caregiver’s role is interpreted is different between the caregiver and the management team - the clinician cannot imagine her professional commitment without considering personal values and motivations, whereas the employer considers personal motivations an impairment to professional effectiveness. This may explain the high rate of burnout for the practitioners working in already stressful conditions in healthcare. Could the reconciliation of personal and professional dimensions prevent this disavowal of human capital? Holistic art therapy proposes to integrate the divide, to repair the rupture often experienced by the caregiver in clinical practice. Furthermore the ethnopsychiatry approach helps to reintegrate bio-psychosocial and spiritual narratives to rebalance the power struggles of workplace which may undermine the professional’s performance and fundamental raison d’être. The caregiver can become whole, balancing interpersonal, interdisciplinary and intercultural dimensions in healthcare practices.
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 | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".