MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071516756 · doi:10.1080/01926180600814585

Group and Individual Couple Treatment for Substance Abuse Clients: A Pilot Study

2007· article· en· W2071516756 on OpenAlexaff
Selina Li, Michael S. Armstrong, Gloria Chaim, Colleen Kelly, Joanne Shenfeld

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Family Therapy · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubstance abuse treatmentSubstance abuseClinical psychologyPsychologyTreatment and control groupsSubstance useRandomized controlled trialSession (web analytics)PsychiatryTreatment modalityPsychotherapistMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brief Couples Therapy is an eight-session, structured treatment for couples with substance-abuse problems. A randomized control study was conducted to compare a group format of BCT (Multiple Couples Treatment) to an individual couple format (Individual Couple Treatment). Twenty-seven couples were recruited and 20 completed treatment. Six-month follow-up data showed significant improvement in Brief Symptom Inventory and Adverse Consequences scores in both treatment groups. Male clients in both conditions and female clients in the ICT condition improved significantly in Dyadic Adjustment scores. Over two-thirds of the substance-abuse clients were able to meet or maintain their drug use goals at the end of treatment. These findings, together with the positive evaluation by the clients, support the use of BCT as a treatment modality for couples with substance use problems.

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)0.005
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.327 · 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

Citations12
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Family TherapySame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207