The short term effectiveness of critical incident stress debriefing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the study was to evaluate the immediate impact of Critical Incident Stres\ns Debriefing (CISD)\non people who had recently experienced a stressful event. Post traumatic symptoms were evaluated with\nthe Impact of Events Scale (IES) before CISD and again six weeks later and were compared to those of\ncontrols and a group who had rece\nived a brief psychoeducational intervention, who were evaluated within\nthe same time frame. Compared with controls, significant effects for the CISD condition and a brief\npsychoeducational intervention were observed on the intrusions and total scales of t\nhe IES. CISD is\neffective in the short\n-\nterm in reducing post\n-\ntraumatic stress symptomatology, notably intrusive memories,\nfollowing a critical incident. However CISD is no more effective than a brief psychoeducational\nintervention. CISD does not increa\nse post traumatic stress symptomatology.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".