Take These Broken Wings and Learn to Fly: Applying Resilience Concepts to Practice with Children and Youth Exposed to Intimate Partner Violence
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A credible body of research has evolved on resilience and children exposed to intimate partner violence (IPV). This information can be drawn on for resilience-informed approaches specifically aimed at working with children exposed to IPV. Child exposure to IPV has been an area of growing interest with rates in both child welfare and community samples remaining at concerning levels. It is commonly accepted that a number of these children experience harmful effects. However, extant studies also indicate some children show resilience after IPV exposure. Yet little has been written on how resilience can be fostered with exposed children who are negatively affected. The authors offer a working definition of it, discuss related concepts, and summarize the resilience research regarding IPV-exposed children. As well, two case examples are presented for ways to foster resilience with IPV-exposed children. Suggestions are made for a resilience-informed approach with this population, and it is demonstrated how social workers can use this to reinforce a strengths-based framework. Suggestions for future research and practice are also made.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it