“What is the point of it all if we are just going to die anyway?”: Exploring Heideggerian concepts of ‘developing-towards-death’ with children using arts-based existential therapy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Heidegger’s analysis of death in Being and Time (1927) is profoundly impactful, and yet, a neglected aspect of it pertains to child development.Aims The central research question guiding this qualitative study was: when provided with opportunities for creative expression and philosophical inquiry, do children’s attitudes towards death align with Heidegger’s (1927) theories of death and existence?Method Using an arts-based existential therapy approach, we conducted two 60-minute workshops over 2 weeks with elementary school children aged 11-12 providing them with an opportunity to openly reflect on death.Results Participants were transparent in expressing their thoughts and feelings about death and expressed thinking of death often, emphasizing it was almost every day. Children’s perceptions of death were also consistent with Heidegger’s (1927) analysis of Being-towards-death, existential anxiety, and anticipatory resoluteness.Discussion Following an analysis, arts-based existential interventions show promise for the potentiality of adapting Heidegger’s phenomenology for children.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it