"No Foolproof Formula": Teacher Identity and Classroom Support for Parentally Bereaved Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study addressed the following central research question: how have experiences supporting parentally bereaved adolescents reportedly been shaped by the teacher identity of three secondary school educators working in Toronto, Ontario? This qualitative semi-structured interview-based study presents data gathered through the participation of three teachers who have supported at least one grieving student. The findings from the interviews are contextualized by research literature in the areas of grief studies, school-based mental health support, and teacher identity. Five major themes emerged from these findings. Firstly, participants reported that cultivating an empathetic teacher identity communicates to bereaved students that they are caring and trustworthy adults. Secondly, the participants recognized that their role as empathetic teachers is circumscribed by both professional standards and ethics of personal privacy. Thirdly, they expressed common encounters with obstacles to supporting grieving students, which fall into one of two categories: lack of a formulaic response to grief or failures of communication. Fourthly, they perceived the significant positive impact involvement in such extracurriculars as art and sport can have on students throughout periods of mourning. Finally, they reported dissatisfaction with both pre-service and in-service training they have received on the subject of students’ mental health and, to varying degrees, reported an unmet need for more robust full-time guidance staff. The implications of these findings for various stakeholders are discussed and recommendations are made based on these implications.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".