MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994154191 · doi:10.22329/csw.v16i1.5915

Exploring Dance/Movement Therapy to Treat Women with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder

2019· article· en· W2994154191 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Brooklyn Levine, Helen Land, Erica L. Lizano

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Social Work · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDiversity and Impact of Dance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)DancePsychologyPsychotherapistThematic analysisClinical psychologyTraumatic stressPosttraumatic stressPsychiatryQualitative research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traumatic events can have significant physical, psychological, and neurological effects on an individual. Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a psychological condition that can result from experiencing or witnessing a traumatic event. Women have a higher risk of PTSD than men do, and because PTSD has been shown to increase the risk of suicidal ideations and behavior, homicidal behavior, and general violence in the community and in the home, women are at a great risk (Levine & Land, 2014). This paper explores the use of dance/movement therapy (DMT) as an intervention to treat women suffering with PTSD. Examining the connection between the body, the mind, and the brain for individuals who have experienced traumatic events helps to highlight how multifaceted treatment methods for PTSD, such as DMT, can be more effective. Semi-structured phone interviews were conducted with 15 dance/movement therapists about the use of DMT with women experiencing PTSD. Using methods rooted in content and thematic analysis, the present study examined the emergent theme of intervention tools and tactics. The results highlight the core elements of the intervention that may be integrated into social work practice, in an effort to better support women with PTSD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Social WorkSame topicDiversity and Impact of DanceFrench-language works237,207