Resilience, Hope, and Concrete Plans of Action for Schools and Caring Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a hypothetical framework (as a four-part model in diagram form) for the examination of the concept of resilience as it relates to child development. Resilience is considered from a socio-ecological perspective. The relationship between resilience and stress is explored and stress and interventions from both internal and external sources is examined in relation to the promotion of resilient behaviours in children. Reported efforts to influence children’s resilience are examined for common features, resulting in a four-part model, which will lead to further research. The common features of current efforts by schools to increase resilience in children include: 1) support students to help them recognize alternatives; 2) make students mindful of their options; 3) create supports that help students act with intentionality; and 4) help students think in longer terms and move toward establishing consistency in their behaviours to help them reach life goals. The connections between increased resilience, mindful acts, intentionality, and long-term goals are considered.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".