MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281678560 · doi:10.1037/pst0000401

Group therapy for schizophrenia: Why Burlingame et al. (2020) should redo their meta-analysis.

2022· letter· en· W4281678560 on OpenAlex
Steffen Moritz, David T. Turner, Andreas Bechdolf, Daniel Mueller, Todd S. Woodward, Danielle Penney, Stephanie Mehl

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

VenuePsychotherapy · 2022
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalDouglas Mental Health University InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsycINFOMeta-analysisPsychologySchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PsychotherapistGroup psychotherapyPsychoanalysisMEDLINEClinical psychologyPsychiatryMedicinePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Comments on the meta-analysis by G. M. Burlingame et al. (see record 2020-37337-001) on group therapy in schizophrenia. The commenting authors explain why they think that the meta-analysis is seriously flawed and should be recalculated and updated. First, however, they briefly reflect on the role of meta-analyses in contemporary research to emphasize that this discussion is not merely an academic debate but may have significant implications for the psychotherapeutic landscape as a whole. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.007
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0650.000

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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.265 · 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