MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2281279415 · doi:10.7870/cjcmh-2015-025

A Feasibility Trial of a Novel Approach to Depression Prevention: Targeting Proximal Risk Factors and Application of a Model of Health-Behaviour Change

2016· article· en· W2281279415 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Kristina L. Bradley, Darcy A. Santor, Rylee Oram

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Community Mental Health · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)Depression (economics)Vulnerability (computing)Affect (linguistics)CognitionCognitive vulnerabilityBehavior changeMedicineRandomized controlled trialClinical psychologyMechanism (biology)PsychologyDepressive symptomsPhysical therapyPsychiatryComputer securitySocial psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We aimed to develop and conduct a feasibility trial of a brief intervention to target proximal risk factors (i.e., cognitive vulnerability) to prevent depression, as well as to improve understanding of the mechanism of change in our prevention program by the incorporation of the theory of planned behaviour. Thirty-seven university students participated in an open feasibility trial of a brief CBT-based depression prevention program. Participants completed an online questionnaire pre- and post-intervention. Results indicated that participants experienced pre- to post-intervention improvements in their self-perceived capacity to learn strategies and an increase in positive affect, demonstrating its preliminary effectiveness in reducing risk factors for depression.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Community Mental HealthSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207