Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence from existential–humanistic psychology suggests that addiction is a response to boredom, loneliness, meaninglessness, and other existential struggles. This research is a case study of an existential, meaning-centered therapy practiced at an addiction treatment facility. Meaning therapy assumes that addiction is a response to a life that lacks personal meaning. The solution, therefore, is to help the client live a fulfilling life. The research question asked if, and in what ways, meaning therapy influenced how participants made sense of their addiction and recovery. The study used a mixed-methods design. Sources of qualitative data were pretreatment and posttreatment interviews, psychiatric reports, researcher field notes, and participants’ life stories. Quantitative data were pretreatment and posttreatment measures of items relevant to meaning and symptom reduction. Eleven participants volunteered for the study. Themes that emerged during a grounded theory thematic analysis revealed that therapy positively influenced nine (81.8%) participants in developing self-definition, interpersonal relatedness, and intrinsic motivation. Quantitative analysis revealed significant increases in measures of meaning and decreases in symptoms and daily problems for seven participants (63.6%). About 6 to 9 months posttreatment, eight participants (72.7%) who pursed self-definition, relatedness, and intrinsic motivation reported abstinence since discharge, fewer symptoms and problems in daily life, and the pursuit of personal goals. This study provides therapists with a better understanding of meaning therapy and suggests implications for addiction treatment.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".