MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001209438 · doi:10.1080/07481187.2014.958628

Reconstructing Meaning with Others in Loss: A Feasibility Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of a Bereavement Group

2015· article· en· W2001209438 on OpenAlexafffund
Christopher J. MacKinnon, Nathan Grant Smith, Mélissa Henry, Evgenia Milman, Harvey Max Chochinov, Annette Körner, Mel Berish, Amanda Jessica Farrace, Nikoleta Liarikos, S. Robin Cohen

Bibliographic record

VenueDeath Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsChamplain Regional CollegeUniversity of ManitobaJewish General HospitalMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialPsychosocialPsychological interventionAnxietyGriefComplicated griefIntervention (counseling)PsychologyMeaning (existential)PsychotherapistClinical psychologyPhysical therapyMedicinePsychiatrySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

More effective psychosocial interventions that target uncomplicated bereavement are needed for those actively seeking support. The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of evaluating a unique meaning-based group counseling (MBGC) intervention with a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design. Twenty-six bereft individuals were randomly assigned to either MBGC or a control bereavement support group. Twenty participants (11 experimental, nine control) completed all aspects of the study including self-report measures at baseline, postintervention, and 3-month follow-up of meaning in life, anxiety, depression, and grief. Results support the feasibility of an RCT with MBGC.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designRandomized 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

Citations18
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDeath StudiesSame topicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207