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 \nin the areas of grief and bereavement, and in identifying effective supports and interventions for \nthose who are mourning. Individuals who lose a loved one to traumatic and/or unexpected causes \n(unnatural events such as overdoses, suicides, car accidents, violent crimes) often face some \nspecific challenges in their grieving journey, are at higher risk for experiencing complicated grief.. \nSome recent research has identified the usefulness of arts-based interventions in supporting those \nwho are bereaved. Bereaved individuals participating in arts-based methods may receive support \nthrough art-making and engaging in the creative process itself, as well as through meaning-making \nopportunities in metaphoric communication related to loss, and through memorialisation of one’s \nrelationship with the deceased. The study described herein utilizes a qualitative research process \nand 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 \nemerged from the data (1) exploring new territory (2) travelling together (3) crossing the borders, \nand (4) getting somewhere. Collectively, the participants herein described their experience in the \ngroup as being helpful in their personal grief journeys, in their understanding of themselves, and/or \nin making meanings in relation to their loss(s). Several participants in the study expressed signs of \ngrowth, making statements specifically attributing this growth to their participation in the group. \nThe findings in this study provide a rich and in-depth exploration of five individuals’ experiences \nin an arts-based supportive group for traumatic losses, adding to a limited body of literature on the \ntopic. 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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".