MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392019286 · doi:10.1921/gpwk.v17i1.609

Inpatient groupwork

2012· article· en· W4392019286 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

VenueGroupwork · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMedical educationNursingMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper introduces a model of inpatient groupwork, where the groupworker acts as consultant to the group facilitators. Based loosely on Yalom’s model of inpatient groupwork, weekly sessions are run by two or three staff members. Supervision to the group facilitators is provided fortnightly by the groupwork consultant. This model enables several staff to develop the competencies required to facilitate groupwork in inpatient settings. It contrasts with the more common practice, where groupwork expertise is provided by external specialist practitioners, coming into the wards to conduct sessions. The authors provide some illustrative material from the group sessions. Additional material is provided from supervision sessions, which aim to help staff understand more about the group process and dynamics. In addition to involving more staff in groupwork, the model is also a highly efficient use of the Associate Specialist’s time.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.310
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.270 · 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