Towards a relational framework for pathological gambling (Part II): Congruence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an illustrative clinical case study, congruence is depicted as the fifth circuit in a relational framework to extricate gambler and spouse from pathological gambling and its after‐effects. Congruence couple therapy poses interventions in four dimensions of the couple experience: (i) intra‐psychic; (ii) interpersonal; (iii) intergenerational and (iv) universal‐spiritual. Congruence is operationalized as awareness, attention, acknowledgment and the alignment of the four dimensions. The philosophical underpinnings of this concept‐based model are laid out with clinical vignettes. The couple reported improved relationship quality with a reduction of gambling urges and maintained abstinence. The couple relationship serves as leverage for both gambler and spouse to reconnect with themselves, with each other, with their intrinsic worth and dignity and with their family of origin experiences. As such, congruence couple therapy goes beyond the level of the individual and intra‐psychic to reconstruct key family relationships in both past and present, and to rebuild spiritual resources to fortify the couple's capital for sustained recovery.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".