MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025632850 · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.72.4.653

Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia: Comparison of Individual Therapy, Group Therapy, and Telephone Consultations.

2004· article· en· W2025632850 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

VenueJournal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsCognitive therapyCognitive behavioral therapyCognitive behavioral therapy for insomniaGroup psychotherapyModalitiesInsomniaPsychologyCognitionClinical psychologyPhysical therapyPsychotherapistMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forty-five adults with primary insomnia received cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) implemented in a group therapy format, in individual face-to-face therapy or through brief individual telephone consultations. The results indicate that CBT was effective in improving sleep parameters with all 3 methods of treatment implementation, and there was no significant difference across methods of implementation. All 3 treatment modalities produced improvements in sleep that were maintained for 6 months after treatment completion. These results suggest that group therapy and telephone consultations represent cost-effective alternatives to individual therapy for the management of insomnia.

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 score0.786
Threshold uncertainty score0.700

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.318 · 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