MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969070347 · doi:10.1080/10550490802138830

Effectiveness of Community‐Based Treatment for Problem Gambling: A Quasi‐Experimental Evaluation of Cognitive‐Behavioral vs. Twelve‐Step Therapy

2008· article· en· W1969070347 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

VenueAmerican Journal on Addictions · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbstinencePsychologyCognitive behavioral therapyCognitionTreatment and control groupsClinical psychologyCognitive therapyPsychiatryMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the increasing availability of gambling throughout North America, there is interest in developing more effective treatments. This study compares the effectiveness of two brief outpatient treatments for problem gambling: eight sessions of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (n = 65) and eight sessions of a twelve-step treatment-oriented approach based on the first five steps of Gamblers Anonymous (n = 61). There were no baseline group differences on gambling-relevant variables. Twelve months post-treatment showed no group differences on key gambling variables (eg, frequency, abstinence rates, money wagered) in an analysis of completers. Participants who attended more sessions and chose an initial abstinent treatment goal appeared to achieve better outcomes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.426
Threshold uncertainty score0.818

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.281
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.210 · 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