MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330549980 · doi:10.1037/int0000028

Combining Cognitive Therapy with Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for depression: A manualized group therapy.

2016· article· en· W2330549980 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychotherapy Integration · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcceptance and commitment therapyPsychotherapistPsychologyGroup psychotherapyIntegrative psychotherapyDepression (economics)Cognitive behavioral therapyClinical psychologyCognitionPsychiatryIntervention (counseling)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cognitive Therapy (CT) and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) have different philosophical tenets. CT targets the form and frequency of mental experiences, whereas ACT focuses on the context of thoughts and feelings. Integrating both approaches in a single therapy may prove beneficial because c

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0040.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.323 · 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