MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121678297 · doi:10.1177/1744629506067612

Practitioner consensus in the use of cognitive behaviour therapy for individuals with a learning disability

2006· article· en· W2121678297 on OpenAlexaff
Katie Haddock, Robert S. P. Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intellectual Disabilities · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity College of the North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyLearning disabilityCognitionPsychotherapistClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) has been acknowledged as one of the most successful treatments for mental health problems. However, only a small number of practitioners engage in CBT with people with learning disabilities. A group of eight clinical psychologists who currently use CBT with this population gave details about their work in an attempt to gain a consensus on how to adapt CBT. The collective experiences of a wider group of experts produced a wealth of knowledge and suggestions to promote the use of CBT with this client group. Results suggested that although CBT needs to be creatively delivered, it does not necessarily need extensive adaptation.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.421
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations36
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Intellectual DisabilitiesSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207