Implementation Research with Expressive Arts Therapy (EAT) to Support the Newcomer Survivors of Gender-based Domestic Violence (GBDV) in Toronto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: Canada hosts thousands of newcomers from disadvantaged economies. Because of cultural non-essentialism and stigma, newcomer women in Canada embrace multi-level barriers to express their everyday discrimination and trauma experienced at home. Language creates another level of challenge. To understand the under-expressed domestic violence and the level of their trauma, this study added an arts-based evidence-generation technique followed by healing strategies by expressive arts modalities for this implementation research. Methodology: This mixed-method implementation research adopted an outcome-harvesting approach. Peer researchers conducted a collaborative review of the literature to find the best arts practices for identifying violence (type, bases, frequency, and severity), sort out the best modalities of expressive arts therapy (EAT) for such a vulnerable population group, and efficient measures to evaluate the intervention findings. Intervention: After screening for eligible participants (not in a crisis state) and their preparedness, a series of twelve sessions of EAT were conducted by a registered therapist on a closed group of newcomer participants. In a pilot phase, therapies are completed with three linguistic newcomer women groups- Arabic, Farsi/Dari, and Bengali. Three more groups (women speaking Tigrinya, newcomer women living in a shelter, and members of the LGBTQ2S+ communities) are selected for the next therapy sessions. The three sequential modalities were movement and discussion, storytelling and cognitive, and visual art and journaling. The key procedures were psychoeducation, self-regulation, co-regulation, strength-based, cognitive/tactile, and collective painting. The peer researcher conducted a 1-to-1 telephone interview with every participant for wellness and vulnerability checks three months after the last session. A Focus Group Discussion (FGD) is done for every group six months after the last session to assess sustainability and emerging challenges. Call into action: After triangulation of quantitative, qualitative, and arts-based evaluation findings, the study team prepares a scalable culturally appropriate practice guideline, a resource navigation toolkit for the survivors, and a policy advocacy document for necessary legislative amendment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".