MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974271828 · doi:10.1521/ijgp.54.3.347.40339

Group Interventions for Patients with Cancer and HIV Disease: Part III. Moderating Variables and Mechanisms of Action

2004· review· en· W1974271828 on OpenAlex
Allen C. Sherman, Julie Mosier, Molyn Leszcz, Gary M. Burlingame, Kathleen Hubbs Ulman, Trish Cleary, Stephanie Simonton, Umaira Latif, Lara Hazelton, Bernhard Strauß

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

VenueInternational Journal of Group Psychotherapy · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Support in Illness
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionPsychosocialDiseaseIntervention (counseling)CancerPsychologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Clinical psychologyAction (physics)MedicinePsychotherapistPsychiatryFamily medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Growing evidence supports the value of group interventions for individuals who are at risk for or have developed cancer or HIV disease. However, information is more limited concerning how these services can be delivered in an optimal manner, and what processes contribute to their benefits. Parts I and II of this review examined the efficacy of different interventions for individuals at different phases of illness, ranging from primary prevention to late-stage disease, in both psychosocial and biological domains. The current paper examines some of the factors other than phase of illness that might influence group treatment effects (e.g., intervention parameters, participant characteristics), and explores mechanisms of action.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.879
Threshold uncertainty score0.662

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.340 · 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