MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3186930684 · doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcab109

A Strength-based Approach to Exploring Factors that Contribute to Resilience Among Children and Youth Impacted by Disaster

2021· article· en· W3186930684 on OpenAlexaffabout
Caroline McDonald‐Harker, Julie Drolet, Anika Sehgal

Bibliographic record

VenueThe British Journal of Social Work · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicResilience and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVulnerability (computing)PsychologyPsychological resilienceFlood mythDevelopmental psychologyPositive Youth DevelopmentResilience (materials science)Social psychologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Children and youth are among the most vulnerable to the detrimental effects of disaster due to their unique physical, cognitive and psychological life stage. Despite their increased vulnerability, children and youth also demonstrate resilience when faced with the adverse circumstances of disasters, and can act as important catalysts for change in their families and communities. This article discusses research conducted with eighty-three children and youth (five to seventeen years) who experienced the 2013 flood in Alberta, Canada. A mixed-methods approach was utilised. The Child and Youth Resilience Measure was used to examine the factors that contribute to resilience post-disaster, including individual, care-giver and contextual factors. In-depth qualitative interviews further examined the specific ways in which individual, caregiver and contextual factors contribute to higher levels of resilience. Findings reveal that despite numerous post-flood challenges, children and youth had higher than average levels of resilience. The findings demonstrate that high levels of resilience are associated with individual factors, specifically peer support and caregiver factors, namely caregiver psychological support. We discuss the implications of these findings for social work policy and practice, and for understanding the factors that best support the resiliency processes and overall recovery of children and youth following disaster.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations25
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe British Journal of Social WorkSame topicResilience and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207