MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4200537282 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igab046.2022

Testing Online Men’s Groups to Promote Psychological Well-Being and Reduce Despair During the COVID-19 Pandemic

2021· article· en· W4200537282 on OpenAlexaff
Marnin J. Heisel, Paul S. Links, Sisira Sarma, Gordon L. Flett, Kimberly Wilson, Simon Hatcher, Sylvie Lapierre, David Conn

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresBaycrest HospitalUniversity of OttawaUniversity of GuelphYork UniversityMcMaster UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApathyPsychological interventionSocial isolationPsychologyContext (archaeology)PandemicMental healthClinical psychologyGerontologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PsychiatryMedicineCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Suicide prevention is a healthcare and social justice priority. Older adults have the highest rates of suicide and the highest COVID-19 fatality rates in North America. The combined impacts of social isolation, fear of infection, apathy, and hopelessness could amplify suicide risk among older adults, as appears to have been the case during the 2003 SARS epidemic in Hong Kong. Innovative interventions are thus needed to promote social interaction and reduce risk for suicide in these challenging times. We are currently testing an online version of our Meaning-Centered Men’s Group (MCMG; Heisel et al., 2020), an upstream psychological intervention designed to promote psychological well-being and reduce suicide risk among men struggling with the transition to retirement, in the context of pandemic-related public health restrictions. This presentation will focus on adaptations to MCMG for online delivery, and share participant experiences and findings on positive and negative psychological outcomes.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in Aging→Same topicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes→French-language works237,207→