MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043544304 · doi:10.1606/1044-3894.3545

Supportive Group Therapy for Parents who Chronically Neglect Their Children

2006· article· en· W2043544304 on OpenAlexaff
Elsa Marziali, Thecla Damianakis, David Smith, Nico Trocmé

Bibliographic record

VenueFamilies in Society The Journal of Contemporary Social Services · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroup psychotherapyPsychologyNeglectIntervention (counseling)Interpersonal communicationClinical psychologyQualitative researchPsychotherapistInterpersonal relationshipDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatrySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to provide a qualitative analysis of neglecting mothers’ responses to participation in an evidence-based model of supportive group therapy. Six mothers with a history of neglecting their children were invited to participate. Two social workers applied a previously evaluated model of group psychotherapy for severe personality disorder. The analysis of transcribed therapy sessions yielded salient themes as to participants’ involvement in group process. Post intervention follow-up interviews provided participants’ subjective reflections on positive changes in interpersonal encounters with their children, partners, and the child welfare system. Although providing this intensive group program is costly, follow-up interviews showed that the chronically neglecting mothers viewed their participation in the group as having been helpful.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFamilies in Society The Journal of Contemporary Social ServicesSame topicPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207