Exploring the Transformative Effects of Flow on Children’s Liminality and Trauma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The process of creating art seems to be a healing as much as an expressive practice for children. Not only are art activities recognized as a necessity for children’s cognitive development, but also as a voice to express the trauma of their distressing experiences. The following article is based on art making as an effective trauma intervention therapy, adding to previous knowledge of childhood trauma and liminality for teachers and health community services. In our diverse, fast changing, challenging times, we need to encourage reflecting and utilising social justice in professionalism to achieve lasting changes in society. Therefore, the authors investigated the concept of “liminality” (a phase of change, transition and transformation) as a framework for understanding how the process of art making soothes “childhood trauma.” Recent research has revealed that the beneficial effects of drawing are due to children entering a time and phase of liminality. Emotions and states such as despair, depression and fear, accompanied by intuitive knowledge, memory, resilience and wellness might be experienced. This leads to an integrative process: while children are drawing, they are completely engaged in a non-verbal activity which needs their total involvement, concentration, imagination and creativity. The healing effect of drawing while in the flow, which helps children with trauma, has been translated from research findings into a poem. This unique contribution to the literature on art therapy’s transformative effects summarizes the results of the above study.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".