MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7047475171

Group Art Therapy Program for Refugees in Museum Settings

2022· other· en· W7047475171 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSpectrum Research Repository (Concordia University) · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLightning and Electromagnetic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefugeeArt therapyPsychological interventionCoping (psychology)Mental healthMultitudeIntervention (counseling)Displaced personGroup psychotherapy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forced migration is a worldwide crisis that presents a multitude of risk factors and needs. Refugees have to flee their countries as a result of violence, deprivation, persecution, war, or a threat to their lives (Van der Gucht, 2019). The process of pre-, during, and post-migration poses an accumulation of obstacles that reshape the trajectories of newcomers’ lives (Schouler-Ocak & Kastrup, 2018). Particularly, during post-migration and resettlement, refugees have to hold onto past experiences of trauma and displacement, while facing new stressors and barriers in their new host country. These experiences can impact newcomers’ emotional safety, cultural preservation, well-being, coping mechanisms, and ease of accessing mental health care (Goosen et al., 2011). With this in mind, existing art therapy programs currently serve a variety of populations including refugees and newcomers. Group art therapy in museum settings can present key therapeutic benefits that support refugees' emotional expression, identity preservation, cultural continuity, memory integration, and social connection. Therefore, this research will address the following question: how could group art therapy interventions conducted in a museum setting support the refugee resettlement process? A secondary research question will also be addressed, which is: what might a group art therapy intervention program that supports refugees’ well-being and resettlement process look like? Using Fraser & Galinsky’s (2010) first two steps of the intervention-based methodology this study integrates and synthesizes literary research with the researcher’s experiences at the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts and The Refugee Centre to propose a 12-week museum-based group art therapy program for refugees and newcomers. Limitations of the research are presented along with implications for practice and future research. \nKeywords: art therapy, museums, interventions, refugees, complex trauma, culture, acculturation, and resettlement.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.002

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpectrum Research Repository (Concordia University)Same topicLightning and Electromagnetic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207