Resilience and Shadow of Collective Trauma: The Mennonites??? Great Traumatic Trek to Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mennonites living in Russia at the start of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 \nentered into a climate of almost relentless violence. Mennonites are a Protestant group that formed during the 16th century Reformation. Long-term psychological implications \nof these events continue for remaining survivors and their offspring to this day. In this \nstudy, four memoirs of Mennonite survivors were analyzed to learn how traumatic \nexperiences were narrated in their lifetime. A literature review explored features \nassociated with individual and collective experiences of trauma. Placing each writer into \ntheir shared historical context was presented to understand both collective and unique \nfeatures of their experiences. Common themes that emerged in the memoirs demonstrated \nboth resilience and challenges in expressing emotions, facing physical challenges, \nprocessing transitions, and coping. Lastly, differing experiences with attachment were \ndiscovered for each writer and inferences were drawn to the intergenerational \ntransmission of trauma. The findings of this study can speak to how social workers may \ncontextualize trauma with biopsychosocial intakes that are broad in scope. Therapeutic \ninterventions were presented that take collective features of trauma into consideration \ninstead of solely individualizing trauma outcomes. Macro-level social work practice with \ngeriatric populations, organizational transformation, and policy change were \nrecommended.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 teacher head, 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".