MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993590866 · doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3504_6

Efficacy of Cognitive–Behavioral Interventions Targeting Personality Risk Factors for Youth Alcohol Misuse

2006· article· en· W1993590866 on OpenAlexaffabout
Patricia Conrod, Sherry H. Stewart, Nancy Comeau, Alexandra MacLean

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSensation seekingPsychologyPsychological interventionPersonalityClinical psychologyAnxietyCoping (psychology)Binge drinkingAnxiety sensitivityBig Five personality traitsIntervention (counseling)PsychiatryPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsMedicineSocial psychologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sensation seeking, anxiety sensitivity, and hopelessness are personality risk factors for alcohol use disorders, each associated with specific risky drinking motives in adolescents. We developed a set of interventions and manuals that were designed to intervene at the level of personality risk and associated maladaptive coping strategies, including alcohol misuse. Manuals contained psychoeducational information on the target personality risk factor and how it is associated with maladaptive coping, as well as exercises targeting maladaptive cognitions and behaviors specific to each personality type. We tested the efficacy of these novel interventions on reducing drinking behavior by randomly assigning 297 Canadian high school students (56% girls, mean age 16, mean grade 11) to personality-targeted interventions (group format; 2 sessions) or to a no-treatment control group. Intent-to-treat analyses indicated beneficial effects of the intervention and Intervention x Personality interactions on drinking rates, drinking quantity, binge drinking, and problem drinking symptoms at 4-month follow-up.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.348
GPT teacher head0.549
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations327
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Child & Adolescent PsychologySame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207