Measuring Resilience and the Importance of Resource Connectivities: Revising the Adult Resilience Measure (RRC-ARM)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There have been many efforts to measure and quantify resilience, and various scales have been developed. This article draws on a mixed methods study which involved the application of one particular scale—the Resilience Research Centre-Adult Resilience Measure (referred to throughout as the ARM). Rather than focus on the quantitative results, however, which have been presented elsewhere, this unique article draws on the qualitative results of the study—semi-structured interviews with victims-/survivors of conflict-related sexual violence in Bosnia–Herzegovina (BiH), Colombia and Uganda—to explore and discuss some of the ARM’s shortcomings. It develops its empirical analyses around the crucial concept of connectivity, “borrowed” from the field of ecology, and the three elements of the study’s connectivity framework—broken and ruptured connectivities, supportive and sustaining connectivities and new connectivities. Through its analyses, the article highlights aspects of the ARM that could potentially be improved or developed in future research, and it ultimately proposes some concrete revisions to the measure, including two additional scales relating to change and importance, respectively.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".