Raising the Curtain on Drama Therapy: Healing Benefits for Youth and Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The vast majority of people around the world have been exposed to dramatic arts in some way, shape, or form, but only recently has drama therapy been accepted as a therapeutic treatment for individuals across the lifespan. This paper provides a general introduction to drama therapy and some of the techniques (e.g., role playing and storytelling) employed in its delivery and hands-on practice. In addition, the paper explores how drama therapy has been used to treat young people (approximately 10-17 years old) who have autism and/or social, emotional, and behavioural difficulties, and older adults (approximately 60-90 years old) who are experiencing normative or non-normative aging. The findings presented here suggest drama therapy may be an efficacious, healing treatment for a myriad of age groups. For instance, its positive effects on individuals with dementia have been observed, and an assortment of intra- and inter-personal improvements have been documented in youth. Considering drama therapy is still a growing field, less drama therapy research exists in comparison to its alternative treatments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".