MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293123856 · doi:10.1521/jsyt.2022.41.1.71

Participant Reflections on Narrative Training Programs in the Indian Context

2022· article· en· W4293123856 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jehanzeb Baldiwala, Trishala Kanakia, Shoba Nayar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Systemic Therapies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeNarrative therapyNarrative inquiryThematic analysisContext (archaeology)PsychologyAgency (philosophy)Mental healthPersonal narrativeMedical educationQualitative researchPsychotherapistSociologyMedicineSocial scienceHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been growing interest in the use of narrative therapy in various settings across India. This study sought to understand the benefits of narrative training programs, facilitated by the mental health team at Ummeed Child Development Center located in Mumbai, India; specifically, how program participants are using narrative ideas and practices in their work contexts. Twenty participants, who had completed different forms of long-term narrative training, were engaged in semistructured interviews. Thematic analysis of the data brought forward three themes: Shift in Practice and Philosophy, Shift in Stance as Therapist/Supervisor, and Shift in Personal Lives. Findings reveal that while narrative trainings are emergent in India, the use of narrative ideas and practices has brought encouraging outcomes in diverse work contexts. The study highlights that culturally relevant narrative trainings foster shifts in understanding of counseling, and invite collaboration and agency in therapy, supervision, and personal contexts of participants’ lives.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativehigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.350

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.188
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Systemic TherapiesSame topicCounseling, Therapy, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207