MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6987627008

Trait emotional intelligence, client symptoms, and predictive factors in wilderness therapy

2022· dissertation· en· W6987627008 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUVic’s Research and Learning Repository (University of Victoria) · 2022
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicOutdoor and Experiential Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmotional intelligenceTraitAllianceAffect (linguistics)Sample (material)Descriptive statistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Mental health issues and harmful substance use are problems that affect many Canadian youth. Wilderness therapy (WT) is a residential adventure-based therapy modality shown to have some success in treating these issues. Further research is needed regarding the ways that participants change, and if there are certain individuals that benefit more from this treatment than others. Purpose: The purpose of this study is to explore the changes in presenting problems and trait emotional intelligence of participants at one WT organization in Ontario, Canada. The working alliance - shown to have a positive impact on therapeutic treatment - along with sex and age, were examined to determine if these elements moderate outcomes. Methodology: Two separate samples were created from archival data provided by the participating organization. The first sample includes pre and post Youth Outcome Questionnaires (N=30, 14 to 18 year olds). The second sample includes pre and post Trait-Emotional Intelligence Questionnaires (N=68 youth, 16 to 20 year olds). All participants in both groups completed one Working Alliance Inventory post-WT. Descriptive statistics were calculated, paired t-tests were run, and Pearson correlation matrices and visualizations were created. Findings/Conclusions: Findings indicate that older male individuals report greater reductions in presenting problems as a result of their participation in WT. Trait emotional intelligence did not seem to change, and the working alliance did not seem to moderate any of these outcomes.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.234

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUVic’s Research and Learning Repository (University of Victoria)Same topicOutdoor and Experiential EducationFrench-language works237,207