MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Self‐Help/Bibliotherapy

2015· other· en· W2128290209 on OpenAlexaff
Matilda E. Nowakowski, Sarah K. Atkey, Martin M. Antony

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology · 2015
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBibliotherapySelf-helpPsychotherapistAnxietyPsychologyClinical psychologyDepression (economics)Psychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Self‐help/bibliotherapy includes information, explanations, exercises, and treatments that are completed with little or no assistance from a therapist. Research shows that self‐help approaches are effective for treating emotional disorders, especially when combined with brief regular therapist contact. Self‐help approaches are commonly accepted by both therapists and patients, and have the potential of increasing the accessibility and cost‐effectiveness of psychology treatments. This entry describes empirically supported self‐help books, and discusses the research evidence concerning several popular self‐help books for anxiety disorders and depression. We discuss the costs and benefits of incorporating self‐help approaches into the treatment of psychological disorders.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.010

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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.546
Teacher spread0.386 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Encyclopedia of Clinical PsychologySame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207