MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128983590 · doi:10.4309/jgi.2007.19.12

The role of mindfulness in the cognitive-behavioural treatment of problem gambling

2007· article· en· W2128983590 on OpenAlex

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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gambling Issues · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMindfulnessMeditationPsychologyPsychotherapistCognitionCognitive restructuringAnxietyIntervention (counseling)Context (archaeology)DistressMindfulness meditationClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent years have witnessed the emergence of mindfulness meditation as an important intervention in the alleviation of illness-related disability and distress. Although originally developed within the context of physical illnesses such as chronic back pain, recent years have seen mindfulness meditation effective in the alleviation of emotional distress, especially anxiety and depression. Mindfulness meditation assists the individual in learning more adaptive ways of responding to aversive mental states by encouraging a focus on remaining present, non-judgement, and acceptance towards all mental states. Unlike cognitive therapy there is no attempt to directly challenge or restructure cognition. Given the prominence of distorted thinking among problem gamblers and the difficulty in modifying them, mindfulness meditation holds promise as an adjunctive intervention to help problem gamblers learn to cope with gambling-relevant cognitive distortions. A case study is presented illustrating the integration of mindfulness meditation into treatment for problem gambling.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score0.467

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.202
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.246 · 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