Exploring participants’ experiences in an arts-based bereavement support group for traumatic and/or unexpected losses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our understanding of grief has shifted in recent years, resulting in a call for international research in the areas of grief and bereavement, and in identifying effective supports and interventions for those who are mourning. Individuals who lose a loved one to traumatic and/or unexpected causes (unnatural events such as overdoses, suicides, car accidents, violent crimes) often face some specific challenges in their grieving journey, are at higher risk for experiencing complicated grief.. Some recent research has identified the usefulness of arts-based interventions in supporting those who are bereaved. Bereaved individuals participating in arts-based methods may receive support through art-making and engaging in the creative process itself, as well as through meaning-making opportunities in metaphoric communication related to loss, and through memorialisation of one’s relationship with the deceased. The study described herein utilizes a qualitative research process and thematic analysis to explore the experiences of participants in Northern Ontario in an artsbased bereavement support group for traumatic and/or unexpected losses. Four main themes emerged from the data (1) exploring new territory (2) travelling together (3) crossing the borders, and (4) getting somewhere. Collectively, the participants herein described their experience in the group as being helpful in their personal grief journeys, in their understanding of themselves, and/or in making meanings in relation to their loss(s). Several participants in the study expressed signs of growth, making statements specifically attributing this growth to their participation in the group. The findings in this study provide a rich and in-depth exploration of five individuals’ experiences in an arts-based supportive group for traumatic losses, adding to a limited body of literature on the topic. Areas in need of further research are discussed as well as implications for social work.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".