MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807773639 · doi:10.5539/jedp.v8n2p29

Testing the Impact of Brief Counseling on Non-Urgent Client Self-Esteem, Social Connectedness, Recommending Their University and Active Alumnus Intent

2018· article· en· W2807773639 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gary Blau, John DiMino, A Marie Barron, Kathleen L. Davis, Kelly Grace, Andrea B. Lopez

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Educational and Developmental Psychology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling Practices and Supervision
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial connectednessPsychologyMedical educationSelf-esteemGroup counselingTest (biology)Sample (material)Clinical psychologyFamily medicineSocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to test brief counseling impact on four outcomes. Two outcomes, self-esteem and social connectedness, were more typical for a University Counseling Center (UCC) to address. However, two other outcomes were more related to a university’s academic mission, i.e., recommending the university and active alumnus intent. Using a longitudinal sample of 60 matched non-urgent undergraduate clients at a UCC, brief counseling increased all four outcomes: social connectedness, self-esteem, recommending the university, and active alumnus intent. For this study, brief counseling was defined as a median of three counseling sessions after intake (range 1 to 8) over a median period of six weeks (range 4 to 10 weeks). In addition, these scale means were compared to a control group of business undergraduates not in counseling. The counseled sample at Time 2 compared favorably to the non-counseled sample on recommending the university and active alumnus intent. To better support its students’ success and university enrollments, UCCs need to consider new avenues to promote their advocacy by gathering data more directly connected to a university’s mission.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Educational and Developmental PsychologySame topicCounseling Practices and SupervisionFrench-language works237,207