MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2635583240 · doi:10.1386/dtr.3.1.75_1

Re-examining Landy’s four-part model of drama therapy education

2017· article· en· W2635583240 on OpenAlexaff
Jason D. Butler

Bibliographic record

VenueDrama Therapy Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt Therapy and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDramaExperiential learningDrama therapyPsychodynamicsPsychologySituatedPedagogySociologyPsychotherapistVisual artsComputer scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines drama therapy pedagogy through Landy’s four-part model of educating drama therapists that looks at the education of the ‘self’ as well as teaching about populations, techniques and theory. Applying the lenses of constructivist, situated, psychodynamic and enactive theories of experiential learning it expands on Landy’s ideas, advocating for a more complex and dynamic view of learning, challenging the field to engage in more dialogue and exploration regarding theories of learning and pedagogy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.012
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.248
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.112 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDrama Therapy ReviewSame topicArt Therapy and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207