MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2370242627 · doi:10.5931/djim.v12i1.6452

Bibliotherapy: How Public Libraries can Support their Communities’ Mental Health

2016· article· en· W2370242627 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueDalhousie Journal of Interdisciplinary Management · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBibliotherapyReading (process)Mental healthPsychologyPublic opinionPublic relationsMedical educationPsychotherapistPolitical scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bibliotherapy is the act of reading a book to aid a mental illness. Although bibliotherapy is commonly practiced in a controlled study, it should be expanded and implemented into public libraries in a way that the public can take bibliotherapy into their own hands. In this paper, bibliotherapy’s effectiveness is looked at through both psychology tests, and online public opinion. Also, its execution in public libraries is discussed, and better ways to implement bibliotherapy are suggested through articles. Overall, public libraries can take an active role in their community’s mental health by providing them tools in the way of books to allow them to explore, understand, and potentially better their emotions or actions.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.745
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.351
Teacher spread0.304 · 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