Building Resilience: The Conceptual Basis and Research Evidence for Resilience Training Programs
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
The relationship between adverse experiences and later development has been explored by many researchers, leading to the conceptualization of resilience as a factor explaining the normal or optimal development of some individuals exposed to adversity. Today many different interventions exist aiming to improve the ability of individuals to respond to adversity. In this narrative literature review, we evaluate the literature surrounding resilience and resilience training, discussing the quality of the evidence supporting resilience training, theoretical and practical differences between types of training, and the impact of resilience and psychological training on outcome measures across a variety of settings. The results of our review show that the quality of the literature is mixed, resilience training is not well differentiated from other forms of training, and that the impact of psychological training on later functioning depends heavily on the type of outcome measured and the setting of the training. Further research must be conducted prior to the implementation of resilience training programs in order to assure their efficacy and effectiveness in proposed contexts.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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