MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972615803 · doi:10.1080/0092623x.2019.1654584

Who Attends Couples Counseling in the UK and Why?

2019· article· en· W2972615803 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Charlie Duncan, Gemma Ryan, Naomi Moller, Rachel Davies

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sex & Marital Therapy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthPsychologyPsychological distressQuarter (Canadian coin)DistressInterpersonal communicationInterpersonal relationshipDemographicsPsychotherapistClinical psychologySocial psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In England, publicly funded couples therapy is reserved for couples where one or both partners present with psychological disorders, rather than relationship distress, despite evidence of a bidirectional relationship between the two. Demographics and presenting issues for 14,726 couples who received counseling through a third-sector counseling organization in England and Wales were investigated. Clients were often White, aged 25-54, and presented with interpersonal issues. "Mental health problems" were identified as an issue by about a quarter of all clients. This suggests that many couples seeking relationship counseling wish to address relational versus psychological distress, which has implications for publicly funded services.

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)0.006
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sex & Marital TherapySame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207