Promoción del bienestar emocional y la resiliencia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Esta investigación analiza estrategias efectivas con el fin de mejorar el bienestar emocional y la resiliencia a través de un enfoque cualitativo y un diseño bibliográfico que revisa diez estudios previos relacionados con el tema. Los estudios abarcan iniciativas como centros de salud mental en Guelph, programas de educación emocional en Auckland y prácticas culturales en comunidades indígenas en Australia, revelando mejoras significativas en la salud mental y la cohesión social. Se observaron reducciones en síntomas de depresión y ansiedad, así como aumentos en la satisfacción laboral y la conexión comunitaria. La discusión enfatiza la importancia de adaptar las intervenciones a las necesidades locales y culturales, destacando que un enfoque colaborativo puede generar un impacto positivo duradero en la resiliencia de las comunidades. Las conclusiones confirman que integrar diferentes enfoques y contextos es crucial para el éxito de las iniciativas de bienestar emocional, sugiriendo que futuras investigaciones deben explorar nuevas intervenciones y considerar cómo estas estrategias pueden ser implementadas en otros contextos.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".