MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899979394 · doi:10.1177/1044389418802450

Coordinated Community-Based Hoarding Interventions: Evidence of Case Management Practices

2018· article· en· W2899979394 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueFamilies in Society The Journal of Contemporary Social Services · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsHoarding (animal behavior)Psychological interventionRubricIntervention (counseling)Set (abstract data type)PsychologyMental healthClinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hoarding is a problem for which coordinated interprofessional interventions are suited to address associated health and safety concerns. Case management (CM) consists of a set of well-established strategies commonly used in community service settings to address serious mental illness and similar complex problems. The present study used qualitative methods to examine whether CM activities occurred in four North American community-based hoarding intervention models. Findings indicated interventions associated with hoarding cases mapped closely onto eight major functions of CM, though emphasis on specific CM activities depended on availability of resources. CM appears to be a useful rubric for approaching complex social and functional problems that arise among urban clients with hoarding disorder.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.704

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.314 · 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