WHAT I WISH FOR IS CALLED : A study on Existential health conversations in school, feelings, and about trying to put into words the things beyond the language.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the study is to investigate students' self-rated health in relation to existential aspects. With a salutogenic approach, the study builds on theories of existential health, attachment-theory, object relation theory and alexithymia. The study examines how the health promotion Existential health conversations affected the students self-rated health, school as a supporting arena as well as the self-rated ability of the youth to identify and verbalize existential feelings. The focus interviews have also been analysed using the World Health Organization [WHO] instrument for measuring health-related quality of life [HRQL] related to spiritual, religious and personal beliefs [SRPB]. To be able to identify the young people's self-rated ability to identify and verbalise existential feelings, the study has chosen to operationalise the theory of alexithymia, primarily inspired by the "Toronto Alexithymia Scale" [TAS20]. The study is a mixed-methods study based on 94 questionnaires and 6 focus interviews with the students and school health team who participated in Existential health conversations. The material for the self-rated health questionnaire is presented comparatively and the focus interviews are used to nuance that result. The approach “cognition, affection and action” was used for both research issues and serves as the theoretical bridge for the research questions in the study's abductive phase. The study found that a large group of students experienced Existential health conversations to be strengthening, and there was a large group of youth that experienced self-rated lack of ability of the youth to identify and verbalise existential feelings. The conclusion of the study states that schools must continue to work on putting this aspect of health in focus with the concept of existential health.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".