From adverse childhood experiences to wellbeing: Portfolios of resilience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resilience has always been present across human history, as we have contended with the wide array of adversities. Resilience research has gained significantly increasing momentum as a core principle of the trauma-informed approach to service. Resilience research supports not only targeting psychopathology symptom reduction, but also recognizing a portfolio of resilience components to harness in youth interventions. The present discussion considers the innovative research work of Hamby and colleagues (2020) in terms of their portfolio of resilience model and current evidence for a dual-factor model of social support (social support seeking and social support receiving). Social support is a frequent intervention component, particularly in developing help-seeking skills, within youth programming. Their findings support this factorial approach that considers the giving-receiving experience, and how the four categories of Interconnected, Rebuffed, Tended, and Isolated may relate to differing resilience profiles. This research raises important questions for future work in terms of the fit between seeking and receiving that places the youth centrally in this consideration. Youths’ journey from trauma to resilience in a way that validates their portfolio of resilience assets, strengths, and potential is central to a trauma-informed approach to youth well-being, as well as how we negotiate youth rights with our developmental, clinical and health responsibilities.
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 | 0.001 | 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".