MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4242715047 · doi:10.1177/1049731518815259

Effects of Computerized Interventions on Risky Alcohol Use Among Youth: Systematic Review

2018· article· en· W4242715047 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch on Social Work Practice · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionMedicineRandomized controlled trialAdverse effectPoison controlClinical psychologyPsychiatryEnvironmental healthSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: The study assessed the effectiveness of computerized brief interventions (CBIs) for youth (aged 15–25) defined as risky alcohol users. Methods: We searched 10 electronic databases. Eligible studies were randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials examining the effect of CBIs for youth. Results: Fifty-three studies with 33,316 participants were included. Moderate quality evidence showed CBIs to reduce risky alcohol use compared to single-dose assessment. Short-term (<6 months) effects were overall larger than long-term (≥6 months) effects. None of the studies reported adverse effects. Conclusions: The positive effects, easy administration, and lack of adverse effects of CBIs indicate that such brief interventions are a feasible way to reduce risky alcohol use in youth.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.495
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.004

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 head0.351
GPT teacher head0.579
Teacher spread0.228 · 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