Photo Feature: What Keeps You Clowning Around?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Healthcare Quarterly recently asked six members of Canada's therapeutic clown community -each a nominee for the 2005 Therapeutic Clown Award -about their experiences and what makes the role so fulfilling.Their responses are as individual as their alter egos.In 1993, I presented a proposal to The Hospital for Sick Children to launch the first therapeutic clown program in Ontario.That summer, Bunky was born under the guidance of my mentor, Karen Ridd, and today Bunky is one of eight practitioners who comprise The Therapeutic Clown Program at SickKids.As staff members of the multidisciplinary team, we have demonstrated our professionalism and expertise in family-centred care.We are housed in the largest pediatric facility in Canada, out on the inpatient units, in outpatient clinics and specialized areas two days a week reaching over 10,000 children a year.My biggest pleasure continues to be helping patients with their stress of hospitalization and treatment through Bunky's light-hearted play and silliness.Offering children choices and building their self-esteem through empowerment is the ultimate.Using skills as therapeutic clowns, Bunky and all of us bring children laughter, hope, choices and most importantly, play for play's sake.Just our presence alone, being here, is the constant reminder to us all -these are children first, then sick children.Over the last 13 years, I have had the pleasure of being a pathfinder in this growing profession as it has spread across Canada.Bunky has made many lifetime friends who have supported me and The Therapeutic Clown Program at SickKids.They have made it possible, first for me, and now, us, to reach out to children and their families here at The Hospital for Sick Children.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.327 | 0.085 |
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".