MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2908337451 · doi:10.1098/rstb.2018.0137

Impulsivities and addictions: a multidimensional integrative framework informing assessment and interventions for substance use disorders

2018· review· en· W2908337451 on OpenAlexafffund
Jasmin Vassileva, Patricia Conrod

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
FundersInstitute of Neurosciences, Mental Health and AddictionNational Institute on Drug AbuseCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFogarty International CenterNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsImpulsivityPsychologyNeurocognitiveAddictionPsychological interventionPersonality disordersPsychopathologyClinical psychologyPsychotherapistPersonalityPsychiatryCognitionSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Impulse control is becoming a critical survival skill for the twenty-first century. Impulsivity is implicated in virtually all externalizing behaviours and disorders, and figures prominently in the aetiology and long-term sequelae of substance use disorders (SUDs). Despite its robust clinical and predictive validity, the study of impulsivity is complicated by its multidimensional nature, characterized by a variety of trait-like personality dimensions, as well as by more state-dependent neurocognitive dimensions, with variable convergence across measures. This review provides a hierarchical framework for linking self-report and neurocognitive measures to latent constructs of impulsivity and, in turn, to different psychopathology vulnerabilities, including substance-specific addictions and comorbidities. Impulsivity dimensions are presented as novel behavioural targets for prevention and intervention. Novel treatment approaches addressing domains of impulsivity are reviewed and recommendations for future directions in research and clinical interventions for SUDs are offered. This article is part of the theme issue 'Risk taking and impulsive behaviour: fundamental discoveries, theoretical perspectives and clinical implications'.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.293
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations108
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological SciencesSame topicMental Health Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207