MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2568832844 · doi:10.5539/ijps.v9n1p81

Evaluating the Effect of Solution-Focused Group Counseling on Improving Quality of Marital Relationships in Childless Couples

2017· article· en· W2568832844 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Khadijeh Panahi Dorche, Seyed Ali Kimiaei, Melika Ghahramanzadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Psychological Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyStratified samplingGroup counselingTest (biology)PopulationRelationship educationQuality (philosophy)Scale (ratio)Social psychologyWelfareCohesion (chemistry)Clinical psychologyDemographyMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the effect of solution-focused counseling on improving the quality of marital relationships on childless couples. This study is a quasi-experimental using pre-test, post-test with a waiting list control group. Sample population of this study was visiting in a Welfare and Education center in city of Eafahan. Fourteen couples were selected randomly through stratified random sampling method and were equally assigned to experimental and waiting list control groups. They completed the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS). The results showed that solution-focused counseling not only significantly increases the quality of marital relationship but also improve dyadic consensus, affective expression, dyadic cohesion and marital satisfaction.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.225
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Psychological StudiesSame topicCounseling, Therapy, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207