MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382023993 · doi:10.1080/02614367.2023.2228508

Leisure and trauma-informed practice

2023· article· en· W4382023993 on OpenAlexafffund
Felice Yuen, Rosemary C. Reilly, Sandra Sjollema

Bibliographic record

VenueLeisure Studies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt Therapy and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec-Société et Culture
KeywordsThe artsSociologyIndigenousEmpowermentCreativityPublic relationsPsychologySocial psychologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Leisure has the potential to contribute to processes of colonization and decolonization. In this paper, we propose using trauma-informed practice as part of a decolonizing process in leisure service provision. While trauma-informed practice continues to have it critiques and limitations from a decolonizing perspective, its recognition of the widespread impact of trauma, the role colonization plays in this trauma, and the value it places on safety, trust, empowerment, collaboration, and practitioner humility and responsiveness may provide leisure professional guidance in decolonizing their practice. This paper presents a project involving Indigenous women, which incorporated aspects of TIP into the facilitation of an arts-based leisure workshop. Using poetic-representation—a method purposefully used to evoke and awaken emotions, the paper highlights experiences of challenge, discovery and release, and collective responsibility. Implications emphasize engaging in a conscious and deliberate process that incorporates arts-based leisure, aims to address colonization (e.g., trauma and oppressive systemic structures), and works towards social justice.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0180.085
Scholarly communication0.0120.009
Open science0.0030.025
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLeisure StudiesSame topicArt Therapy and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207