MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1766036818

Reality Therapy/Choice Theory Today: An Interview with Dr. Robert E. Wubbolding

2015· article· en· W1766036818 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lacey Klingler, Neal D. Gray

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive and psychological constructs research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReality therapyPerspective (graphical)Diversity (politics)PsychologyPsychotherapistSociologyArtVisual arts
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article offers highlights from an interview with Dr. Robert E. Wubbolding, Director of the Center for Reality Therapy in Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. The article will focus on current applications for using reality therapy and choice theory. In particular, this interview addressed assumptions underlying reality therapy and choice theory, key concepts essential to theory and practice, the most important goals of reality therapy, major strengths from a diversity perspective, and a vision for the future of reality therapy.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.012
Scholarly communication0.0050.009
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0070.029
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.186
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Counselling and PsychotherapySame topicCognitive and psychological constructs researchFrench-language works237,207