MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2340087870

Cognitive Remediation Therapy, Eh! An Exploratory Study at a Canadian Adult Eating Disorders Clinic

2016· article· en· W2340087870 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Brad A. Mac Neil, Pallavi Nadkarni, Pauline Leung, Laura Stubbs, Cathy O'Brien, Manya Singh, Sandra Leduc

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsHotel Dieu Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnxietyMoodCognitive flexibilityClinical psychologyFlexibility (engineering)Cognitive remediation therapyPsychologyEating disordersCognitionLife satisfactionExploratory researchPsychiatryPsychotherapist
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cognitive remediation therapy (CRT) is a new pretreatment that is not routinely offered as a part of adult eating disorder programming across Canada. This pilot study examined levels of cognitive flexibility, patient satisfaction, life satisfaction, and psychological symptoms in a group of Canadian adults participating in an open ongoing weekly CRT group. Participants were 38 adults who met DSM-5 criteria for an eating disorder. Pre- and postgroup measures of patient satisfaction, psychological flexibility, satisfaction with life, and low mood and anxiety symptoms were completed. Overall, participants were satisfied with the CRT group and experienced significant changes in their levels of psychological flexibility and satisfaction with life postgroup. Preliminary results provide support for further investigation of CRT as a novel and palatable prepsychological group treatment approach for Canadian adults struggling with an eating disorder that can be easily integrated into preexisting evidence-based programming.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.182
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designObservational
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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Counselling and PsychotherapySame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207