Hyvinvointiin vaikuttavat tekijät : suomalaisten ja palestiinalaisten lasten sadutetuissa tarinoissa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims of the Study. This Study's Aim was to find out the factors that influence Well-Being in the storycrafted stories of Finnish and Palestinian Children. In the past ten years the research of Children's Well-Being has partly developed to a more childperspective direction. Children have slowly started moving from being objects to active subjects and becoming experts of their own Well-Being. This sort of expertese and respect of Childrens own visions has been the Aim also in this Study. In the present Study the focus is on both the resources and suppressors of the Well-Being as well as the similarities and differences between the stories of the Children from two Nationalities. Awareness of the factors influencing Children's Well-Being can on it's part help the Adults working with Children to pay more attention to the things that are meaningful for Children. Methods. The Research Data was given as a ready collected data from the research project Children tell about their Well-Being – Who listens? (projectnumber 1134911), that was funded by Academy of Finland. The research consortium was a collaboration between the Universities of Helsinki and Oulu. In the University of Helsinki it was led by professor Liisa Karlsson. The Finnish stories were retrieved from the Finnish Social Sciences data archive. These stories were collected between the years 1996-2001. The Palestinian data was gathered in Lebanon among the Palestinian refugees between the years 2006-2012. Altogether the datas consist of 81 stories, of which 42 are from Finns and 39 are from Palestinians.Children in both datas were 2-12 years old. In the review of the stories the wellfare theory by Erik Allardt(1976), a Finnish sociologist, was used as a guideline. The resources and suppressors of Well-Being were monitored through Allardt's dimensions of wellfare; material conditions (having), social relationships (loving) and the societal level (being). In the analysingprocess quatifying and contets specification were used. Results and conclusions. The resources of Well-Being in the stories from both datas were home, the satisfaction of basic needs, happiness, play, peer relationships, family and the possibility to influence in their own matters. In addition to these, in the stories of the Palestinians feeling secure and the possibility to influence thorough dance were also regarded as resources. In Finnish stories also autonomous adventures with peers were labelled as resources. Suppressors for Well-Being in the stories of both datas were shortcomings of material conditions, fear and shortcomings of the possibilities to influence own matters. Suppressors in the stories of Palestinians were also the lack of peer relationships, impossibility to play or to attend school, loss of close-ones and the unsaturation of basic needs. Additional suppressors in the stories of the Finns were difficulties in play and being left alone. In the stories of Palestinian Children one can find the experiences and consequences of War from the Child's point of view. In the stories of Finnish Children material conditions and possibilities of influencing own matters were better than in the Palestinian stories. Finnish stories revealed also challenges in peer relationships. As a conclusion from the stories of the Children peer relationships, play, family, satisfaction of basic needs and the possibility to influence ones own matters appear to be meaningful for the Well-Being of Children from both countries.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".