Characteristics of Seekers of Couple Therapy for Alcohol Use or Gambling Disorder: Erratum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the article that appeared on pages 32–39 of the Canadian Journal of Addiction June 2023 issue,1 the text contained copyediting errors from the production process. The corrected text is provided below. Page 32, Affiliations: Bonnie K. Lee, PhD1, Yanjun Shi, M.Ed1, Samuel M. Ofori-dei, PhD1, Naser Miftari, PhD2 1 Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada, 2 Prentice Institute for Global Population and Economy, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. Page 33, Introduction, last sentence: The study was approved by the University of Alberta Health Research Ethics Board-Health Panel. Page 35, left column, first sentence: This duplicate sentence should be disregarded. Page 37, left column, second full paragraph, last sentence: It was found that gambler-focused treatment approaches responded to a different set of concerns compared with family-focused approaches.30 Page 38, Conclusion, third sentence: Presumptions, preferences, and barriers of individuals with addiction and their partners in seeking couple therapy should be further studied.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".