MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071540165 · doi:10.1037/0002-9432.77.4.543

Influence of group cohesion on maternal well-being among participants in a support/education group program for single mothers.

2007· article· en· W2071540165 on OpenAlexaff
Ellen L. Lipman, Marjorie Waymouth, Tara Gammon, Patricia Carter, Margaret Secord, Olivia N. Leung, Brenda Mills, Frances Hicks

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Orthopsychiatry · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPsychosocialGroup cohesivenessSocial supportClinical psychologyDisadvantageCohesion (chemistry)MoodDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Single mothers are at increased risk of psychosocial disadvantage, social isolation and physical and mental health difficulties. The authors present (1) the results of group cohesion assessments completed by mothers participating in a trial of community-based support/education groups, and (2) assessments of the association between group cohesion ratings and intervention outcomes of maternal self-evaluations of well-being (mood, self-esteem, and social support) and parenting. Mothers participating in groups completed the Group Atmosphere Scale, a measure of group cohesion, post-group. Overall, most participants provided strong ratings of group cohesion. Significant associations were found between group cohesion and specific positive outcomes. This suggests a positive association between group cohesion and mood, self-esteem, social support, and parenting, in this trial.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations22
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of OrthopsychiatrySame topicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumFrench-language works237,207