Seducer or ally? : popular culture iconography in the art psychotherapeutic artwork of the individuating male adolescent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The following theoretical and clinical investigation explores the therapeutic potentialities of popular culture iconography in the artwork of the individuating male adolescent. While most research assumes that popular culture's influence with regards to the adolescent is substantial, there have been very few studies which point to a beneficial use of this influence within the therapeutic process. The purpose of the present study is to show the validity of the adolescent's use of popular culture imagery within the art therapy context. Psychoanalytic theory is investigated with regards to identity formation as well as conceptions of 'sign' and 'symbol' delineation. Psychology and art therapy's historical and contemporary relationship to popular culture is pondered. The present research uses a symbolic interactionist frame and methodology, and suggests the need for a more multi-theoretical investigation within the art therapeutic domain. The clinical investigation consists of a case study occurring over ten-sessions within a Canadian metropolitan adolescent residential treatment milieu. Theory, artistic productions, and group interactions are examined with the hopes of shedding new light upon the useful properties of popular culture iconography within the art therapeutic space for the adolescent identity formation process.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".