MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7046776302

'Drama as Therapy' research seminar

2024· other· en· W7046776302 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCentral Research and Creativity Online (The Royal Central School of Speech and Drama) · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDramaDialogicNarrativeRelation (database)CitationQualitative research
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The RCSSD’s CDthAN (Central Dramatherapy Alumni Network) hosted a seminar celebration of over 1000 citations of the book - 'Drama as Therapy' (Routledge 1996, 2007) by Professor Phil Jones. This research based seminar consisted of eight groups of therapist-researchers from Australia, Cameroon, Canada, Israel, Palestine, the UK and the USA presenting their work and being involved in dialogic interviews with other therapist-researchers and MA/Doctoral students from different parts of the world, including those from the RCSSD’s MA in Drama and Movement Therapy. The focus concerns their published research in relation to their citation of ‘Drama as Therapy’, focusing on the book’s theory and research concerning the ‘core processes’ of dramatherapy. What are the Core Processes? ‘The core processes aim to ‘define the key processes which operate within dramatherapy and show how they can be used in different ways according to the needs of the client group or context…’ (Jones 1996: p99). ‘Jones describes nine core processes derived from theatre...(these are) particularly appropriate because dramatherapists agree that it is involvement in the process of drama...that creates the potential for change in dramatherapy’ (Langley 2006: p 22). ‘First articulated by Jones (1991) the drama therapy core processes are common factors across drama therapy approaches that represent universal in-session process variables and are theorized to be therapeutic and bring about client change’ (Frydman et al. 2022: p1). There are eight presentations/interviews by therapist-researchers Presentations and interviews featuring: 1. Leigh Bulmer, Dr Christine Novy, Amy Thomas and Susan Ward about 'Introducing Movement and Prop as Additional Metaphors in Narrative Therapy' (2005) Journal of Systemic Therapies 24: (2) 60-74. Interview by Akinyi Oluoch. 2. Dr Reem Shamshoum about 'Extracts from ‘Dancing in Nazareth' (2016) from ‘Beyond the Boundary: is there something called real knowledge?’ ALARA Monograph. Interview by Dr Ditty Dokter and Dr Sandra El Gemayel. 3. Rinat Feniger-Schaal about 'Using Drama Therapy to Enhance Maternal Insightfulness and Reduce Children’s Behavior Problems' (20210 Frontiers in Psychology (11): Art. 586630. Interview by Anat Geiger and Professor Phil Jones. 4. Genevieve Smyth about 'Solution-focused brief dramatherapy group work: working with children in mainstream education in Sri-Lanka' (2010) from Arts Therapies in Schools: Research and Practice (ed. Karkou, V.), Jessica Kingsley. Interview by Lujain Faqerah and Dr Emma Ramsden. 5. Lucy Lu and Dr Felice Youen about 'Journey women: Art therapy in a decolonizing framework of practice' (2012) The Arts in Psychotherapy 39: (3) 192-200. Interview by Madeline Montgomery and Professor Phil Jones. 6. Professor Paul Animbom about 'Therapeutic theatre: an experience from a mental health clinic in Yaoundé-Cameroon' (2017) Arts & Health 9:(3) 269-278. Interview by Lanjo Neindefoh and Dawisu Ndzewiyi. 7. Dr Joanna Jaaniste about 'Dramatherapy with Elders and People with Dementia' (2022) Routledge. Interview by Dr Alyson Coleman, Tammy Ivensha, Sam Ruston, Jordan Rapacchi and Dr Chanaphan Thammarut. 8. Dr Angelle Cook, Dr Jason Frydman and Dr Chyela Rowe about 'Understanding school-based drama therapy through the core processes: An analysis of intervention vignettes' (2021) The Arts in Psychotherapy 73: (2) 101766 and 'The drama therapy core processes: A Delphi study establishing a North American perspective’ (2022) The Arts in Psychotherapy 80: (1) 101939. Interview by Dr Alyson Coleman and June VanWeelden. 9. Seminar Recording October 16 2024 Note on Ethics: The seminar interview process was approved by the RCSSD Research Ethics and Integrity Sub-committee (2024) and interviewees signed a consent form. This included consent for the inclusion of the interviews in this respository. All research referred to within the interviews is: from published articles and chapters; within the public domain and was subject to ethical approval within the contexts of the researchers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0060.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1150.030

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCentral Research and Creativity Online (The Royal Central School of Speech and Drama)Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion researchFrench-language works237,207