Dressing the wounds: an investigation into the experiences of middle school educators with students who self-injure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The acts of cutting, hitting, biting or burning one's own body have become increasingly prevalent amongst adolescents. These behaviours have been termed self-injury but are also known as deliberate self-harm, self-abuse or self-mutilation. The onset of self-injuring behaviours often coincides with early adolescence, placing middle school educators in a prime position to prevent or intervene in the employment of them. Unfortunately there is little research to support those educators when they are faced with the challenge of responding to a student who is, or may be, self-injuring leaving both them and their students at a disadvantage. Driven by the main question, "What experiences have educators had with urban middle school students who self-injure?" this inquiry has begun to address this omission. Through semi-structured interviews and document analysis, the experiences of six educators who worked in Canadian middle schools with students who self-injured were explored. Research findings were coded thematically and then juxtaposed with the current literature on self-injury and with documents pertaining to the legal obligations and ethical guidelines for educators. In highlighting areas of resonance and dissonance four areas of interest emerged: (i) the in-depth understanding of self-injury the participants held, (ii) the evolving nature of self-injury in schools, which included flaunting the behaviours, group engagement and a contagion effect, (iii) intervention strategies both undertaken and proposed by participants along with perceived obligations, and (iv) potential approaches to prevention. Implications for future research and practice were also suggested throughout this process. The overall findings of this study suggest that self-injury has become a pervasive behaviour educators are required to contend with in middle schools, which requires further investigation.
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 | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| 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".