MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283833918 · doi:10.47634/cjcp.v56i1.68946

“I Could Hardly Breathe”: Teachers’ Lived Experiences of Bereavement After the Violent Death of a Student

2022· article· en· W4283833918 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Aleigha M. Arksey, Elaine Greidanus

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyInterviewGriefViolent deathLived experienceClinical psychologyMedical educationPsychotherapistMedicineSuicide preventionPoison controlMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Teachers’ bereavement experiences after the violent death of a student consist of an area that warrants more study, given the increased risk of experiencing persistent complex bereavement due to the traumatic nature of violent deaths. A phenomenological methodology was adopted to explore teachers’ experiences after the violent death of one or more of their students. Interviewing five participants revealed that such experiences are both personal and professional. Students and teachers can form strong, long-lasting bonds that act as the foundation for understanding the bereavement experienced when students die. Participants identified several barriers that can arise when seeking help. Collegial support was reported to be important for teachers’ journeys of healing. In regards to counselling, teachers’ needs immediately following such a loss may differ from ongoing counselling needs. Follow-up counselling support (utilizing a trauma and bereavement lens), targeted 1 or more years after the loss, may be more important than previously considered.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0180.016
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0040.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Counselling and PsychotherapySame topicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207