Efficacy and process of cognitive bibliotherapy for the treatment of depression in jail and prison inmates.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this two-study project was to determine the effects of cognitive bibliotherapy for the treatment of depressive symptoms in jail and prison inmates. Participants in both samples were randomly assigned to either a treatment group that received the 4-week bibliotherapy program or a delayed-treatment control group. In the jail sample, which served as a pilot study for the more detailed prison study, the treatment group showed greater improvement on the A. T. Beck and R. A. Steer Beck Depression Inventory, 1993, Psychological Corporation, San Antonio, TX and the DAS (M. M. Weissman, & A. T. Beck Development and validation of the Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale: A preliminary investigation; paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, November, 1978, Toronto, ON, Canada). In the prison sample, results indicated that the treatment group showed greater improvement on the HRSD (M. Hamilton, Development of a rating scale for primary depressive illness, British Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, Vol. 6, 1967, pp. 278-296) and the A. T. Beck, R. A. Steer, & G. K. Brown Beck Depression Inventory (2nd ed.), 1996, Psychological Corporation, San Antonio, TX. Approximately half of the treated participants achieved clinically significant change. Analyses of the follow-up data revealed maintenance of treatment gains in the prison and jail samples. In the prison study, significant changes were also observed on a general measure of psychological distress. Overall, results suggest that cognitive bibliotherapy may be efficacious for depressed inmates.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".