MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Brief motivational interventions for college drinkers: What we still need to know.

2010· article· en· W2051176963 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

VenueClinical Psychology Science and Practice · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPsychological interventionNeed to knowApplied psychologyMedical educationMedicineComputer sciencePsychiatryComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Isolating the mechanisms of change that lead to reduced risk for heavy drinking by college students—a high-risk population—will permit development of succinct, targeted, and thereby more effective interventions. Examinations of currently used empirically supported brief interventions provide a starting point for identifying mediators (i.e., mechanisms) of change. Extrapolating from such work, it appears that there may be utility in using face-valid and possibly genderspecific interventions. In moving forward, it behooves clinical researchers to continue to draw on theory to identify potential proximal predictors of change. Continuing to think broadly will allow us to not only refine the current content of brief interventions but also open up the opportunity to introduce new components to treatment.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.433
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.360
GPT teacher head0.619
Teacher spread0.258 · 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