MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2336626572 · doi:10.24384/000469

The adolescent experience of motivational interviewing-via-Co-active Life Coaching as a motivational intervention: A constructivist grounded theory

2018· article· en· W2336626572 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

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCoaching Methods and Impact
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMotivational interviewingConstructivist grounded theoryCoachingIntervention (counseling)PsychologyGrounded theoryPsychotherapistConstructivism (international relations)Applied psychologySocial psychologyMedical educationQualitative researchMedicineSociologyPolitical scienceSocial sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adolescents are often suffused in social, emotional, and scholastic pressures. The bombardment of stressors provoked by social media, external demands, self-doubt, and consequences of dangerous and spontaneous acts can result in a perception of self-inadequacy. Consequently, an increase in unhealthy activities and a decline in self-actualization become possible. Negative outcomes that result from avoidance of goal setting and ill-conceived decisions lead to familial and social sanctions, and adolescents become further detached from personal growth and success. The persistence of some youth to negative behaviour suggests that further investigation of effective interventions is a worthwhile undertaking. From this perspective, MI-via-CALC was investigated as a possible behaviour intervention for adolescents.\nThis constructivist grounded theory study was undertaken with the goal of providing a co-construction of meaning that was apprehended in the form of multiple realities to give expression to adolescent participants, deliver an approach that respected their familiarity and contribution to research, and resulted in a substantive theory that is generated for and about them. The methodological, epistemological, and philosophical principles of constructivist grounded theory were applied to this study. The strength of this study was its potential to explain what really happened from the adolescents’ point of view and from their experience. Both MI-via-CALC and constructivist grounded theory required the coach and researcher to focus on shared experiences of coachee/participant and the processes by which conclusions were made of the world.\nThe core process “getting it done” was accessed through the words of the participants and interweaved the concepts that emerged from the study; that is, “empowering self,” “shoring up purpose,” “creating connections,” and “envisioning the future” formed an interplay of categories and subcategories that represented the process of “getting it done.” The data collected from the participants interconnected with data gathered from my memos of interpretations and crystallizations, the principles of MI-via-CALC, and extant literature. Significant to the findings is that the concerted coaching relationship is critical to the adolescent confidently and positively traversing the processes of “getting it done” and MI-via-CALC. The substantive knowledge that developed from this study delivers implications for health promotion, education, parenting, further research, and counselling.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.266 · 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