Social Support as a Predictor of Response to Group Therapy for Complicated Grief
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the effect of perceived social support on the outcome of group therapy for patients who experienced complicated grief following a variety of death losses. One hundred and seven psychiatric outpatients, who received either interpretive or supportive group therapy, rated their perceptions of social support from three sources (family, friends, and a special person) prior to treatment onset. For patients in both forms of therapy, perceived social support from friends was directly associated with favorable treatment outcome. In contrast, perceived social support from family was inversely related to outcome for patients in both forms of therapy. Perceived social support from a special person was directly related to favorable improvement in grief symptomatology for patients in interpretive therapy, but unrelated for those in supportive therapy. The results highlight the importance of assessing the level of support patients perceive from their social networks. The findings also suggest that the effect of perceived social support may also depend on the source of the support. Possible explanations and clinical implications of these findings are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it