The Scrooge Group Therapy: A Meaning-Centered Group Therapy for Outpatients Following CBT
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perceiving one’s own life as meaningful is associated with mental health and well-being. Yet, psychotherapeutic interventions to enhance the experience of meaning have not been sufficiently evaluated in the context of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). The aim of this study was to pilot a group therapy to increase meaning and to evaluate its feasibility and effectiveness. A small ( N = 8) study was conducted with patients after or near the end of their CBT treatment. The intervention was evaluated with a mixed-methods design that utilized qualitative interviews as well as quantitative questionnaires (Satisfaction with Life Scale, Well-being Scale) at pre- and post-treatment as well as after 8-week follow-up. Additional measures (Depression Anxiety Stress Scale, Positive Mental Health Scale, and the existential subscale of the McGill Quality of Life Scale) were administered after each session. Findings indicate that the group therapy was feasible and effective. Participants benefited from the therapy to a moderate to high extent, both in terms of symptom reduction and in terms of an improvement in general psychological well-being. Participants reported positive emotional and behavioral changes. Based on our findings, we conclude that existential interventions are meaningful extensions to CBT.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it