MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968125439 · doi:10.1080/10503307.2014.1002440

Cognitive behavioral therapy: Current status and future research directions

2015· review· en· W1968125439 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychotherapy Research · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionPsychotherapistPsychologyEmpirical researchCognitive behavioral therapyCognitionAcceptance and commitment therapyIntervention (counseling)PsychiatryEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), an umbrella term that includes a diverse group of treatments, is defined by a strong commitment to empiricism. While CBT has a robust empirical base, areas for improvement remain. This article reviews the status of the current empirical base and its limitations, and presents future directions for advancement of the field. Ultimately, studies are needed that will identify the predictors, mediators, and moderators of treatment response in order to increase knowledge on how to personalize interventions for each client and to strengthen the impact of CBT. Efforts to advance the dissemination and implementation of CBT, innovative approaches such as practice-oriented research, and the advantages of incorporating new and existing technologies, are discussed as well.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.612
GPT teacher head0.680
Teacher spread0.068 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it