The Healing Power of Teacher-Student Relationships in Repairing Childhood Abuse: Commonalities and Differences with Clinical Social Work Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research indicates survivors of childhood abuse are able to form the same quality relationships with teachers as non-abused children (Armstrong, Hasket & Hawkins, 2017). However, there is little research indicating what factors within the teacher-student relationship help build this resiliency. This study looks to clinical social work practice as a basis for understanding what qualities of the therapeutic relationship can extend to or overlap with non-clinical relationships with students who have a trauma history, within the teaching field. To better understand experiences within these relationships, semi-structured interviews were conducted with both a clinical social worker who has teaching experience at the post-secondary level, and the study enlisted the researcher as a participant to ascertain the student/ client perspective. Effectively a researcher self-study, findings indicated qualities of safety, empathy and client/student empowerment, albeit in different ways, helped to correct and repair some of the damage of childhood abuse within both therapeutic and teacher-student relationships.
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 | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".