MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205963799 · doi:10.29327/217869.10.2-7

Roleplaying game como ferramenta de intervenção psicológica em grupo operativo

2021· article· pt· W4205963799 on OpenAlexaff
Luísa Fialho da silva, Leticia Franco Martins

Bibliographic record

VenueDiaphora · 2021
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicBusiness and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsAtlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

O presente artigo consiste em um relato de experiência em Estágio Básico de Psicologia, que ocorreu em um grupo terapêutico em uma ONG de Porto Alegre-RS, Brasil. Realizou-se um Grupo Operativo (Pichón-Riviere) com quatro adolescentes cuja demanda identificada transpassava a fase do desenvolvimento vital do grupo, na qual a principal tarefa é a busca pela identidade, focalizando a identidade profissional. Observou-se o enfrentamento de problemas existenciais e a conquista de uma adaptação ativa às demandas da fase vital em que se encontravam. Este processo se deu por meio da fantasia e aprendizagem criativa perante a tarefa, sendo que o estado de tarefa grupal foi alcançado com a realização de Roleplaying Game. Durante o jogo, o grupo percorreu os seis vetores que sinalizam as transformações ocorridas no processo grupal. O grupo fez um salto de estado: de pré-tarefa para tarefa. Após, elaborou o projeto na tarefa. Evidenciou-se que o uso do jogo de interpretação de papéis facilitou este movimento por ser de categoria múltipla e envolver a criação de um avatar, que consequentemente favoreceu a projeção e identificação dos participantes bem como a revelação das fantasias universais, fundamentais para que o processo de mudança aconteça.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.132
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiaphoraSame topicBusiness and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207