Commentary on "Applying the codependency concept to concerned significant others of problem gamblers: Words of caution"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The focus of Calderwood and Rajesparam’s ‘‘Words of Caution’’ is the treatment and mistreatment of concerned significant others (CSOs) affiliated with problem gamblers. A cautionary tale, it was prompted by the negative experience of one of Calderwood or Rajesparam, who observed an ‘‘expert’’ facilitator, self-described as a recovering addict, browbeat the participants of a hospital-sponsored psychoeducational group for problem gamblers and CSOs. On four separate occasions with four different family members, the lead facilitator’s first question to the CSO asked: ‘‘What is your problem?’’ Then, like a broken record, the expert proceeded to badger group participants about the putative characteristics of codependency for six weeks, albeit without actually ever uttering the offensive c-word. Noting that three of the four CSOs enrolled in the group became drop-outs, the authors became worried that other CSOs might also be at risk, because ‘‘workers in the gambling field have adopted or adapted treatment strategies used in the substance abuse field,’’ by which they mean problem-focused family systems theory, a codependency disease model of human behavior, and in-your-face confrontation. As an antidote, Calderwood and Rajesparam prescribe ‘‘more recent therapeutic trends such as a strengths perspective, solution-focused therapy, and a stress-coping model of understanding CSOs.’’
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".