MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404237398 · doi:10.17951/en.2024.9.439-453

Logoprophylaxis vs. Prevention of Risk Behavior and Addiction

2024· article· en· W4404237398 on OpenAlex
Roman Solecki, Piotr Szczukiewicz

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

VenueAnnales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Sklodowska sectio N Educatio Nova · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Medical Studies
Canadian institutionsNational Capital Commission
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAddictionPsychologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article aims to present a new concept of risk behavior and addiction prevention, which is logoprophylaxis, as well as to show its place in the context of preventive activities. Logoprophylaxis is derived from Viktor E. Frankl’s concept of logotherapy. Its primary goal is to counteract existential crises resulting from a sense of lack of meaning in life, which in turn leads to such phenomena as addictions or risky behavior. The authors present sources, principles and strategies of logoprophylaxis and the possibilities of their application to the phenomenon of social anomie.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.476
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.350 · 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