Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resilience research forms the basis of this study examining first person accounts of youth in and alumni youth from care. Resilience opportunities are strengthened when the various systems supporting children and youth work in interconnected and cross-buttressed ways to promote positive coping and healthy development post adversity. It can be challenging to cull meaningful child welfare interventions from the literature's complexity that are not overly simplified or reductionist. This study is predicated on the idea that making adjustments to an existing practice of compiling life books for children and youth in care could be a forum for translating the complexities of resilience research into a therapeutic storytelling intervention. A narrative approach is taken to examine, explore, listen to and learn from a collection of resilience themed stories produced by Youth in Care Canada. Analysis includes an examination of the personal and political implications of identity formation; the empowerment and emotional healing potential in storytelling; and the power of the stories to alter social discourses. The study finds that a storytelling process has the potential to palliate healing in identities that transform from victims of adversity to persons of agency in recovery. Resilience research's main message that sustained supports strengthen opportunities for resilience is upheld. Resilient youth reconfigure the neo liberal ethos of individuality and self reliance into a stance of self determination dependent on the ongoing support of others. The stories are persuasive in widening discourses with the ideas that youth in and from care can meet the criteria for mainstream membership; and, further, youth do not have to overcome their harm to function well - halm and healing can co-exist. The study ultimately supports the recommendation that a storytelling process be implemented in the child welfare system to foster increased opportunities for resilience.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".