MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Efficacy vs. Effectiveness Research in Psychotherapy: Implications for Clinical Hypnosis

2003· article· en· W2109055541 on OpenAlex
Jon K. Amundson, Assen Alladin, Eamon Gill

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

VenueAmerican Journal of Clinical Hypnosis · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPain Management and Placebo Effect
Canadian institutionsCapital District Health AuthorityWinnipeg Regional Health Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypnosisPsychotherapistPerspective (graphical)PsychologyGold standard (test)Clinical psychologyAdjunctOutcome (game theory)Alternative medicineMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Empirically supported therapy (EST) has become a major focus and trend for mental health practice. When hypnosis is involved, this may mean satisfying a standard that is entirely too narrow in its emphasis. In this article "efficacy"-based research in clinical practice is contrasted with "effectiveness" -focused research, and they are discussed from the perspective of hypnosis. When clinicians can consider trans-theoretical factors as well as those that are treatment-enhancing, possibilities for improved treatment outcome increase. The "effectiveness" perspective also serves as a counter point for hypnosis in contrast with the dubious efficacy-based gold standard currently proposed for therapy in general, and hypnosis in particular.

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)0.061
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0610.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.408
GPT teacher head0.584
Teacher spread0.176 · 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