MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1913933083 · doi:10.1300/j182v01n04_05

“My House,” “Your House,” and “Our House”

2001· article· en· W1913933083 on OpenAlexaff
Tom Strong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Activities Assignments & Handouts in Psychotherapy Practice · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegotiationConversationPerspective (graphical)Set (abstract data type)Bridge (graph theory)SociologyPsychologyPsychotherapistComputer scienceMedicineCommunicationArtificial intelligenceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article outlines some possibilities that a discourse perspective has for optimizing collaborative dialogue between therapists and clients. Discourse is presented as ways of talking and relating that set forth conditions of possibility and constraint on the dialogues of therapy. The effects of therapist discourses (“my house”) and client discourses (“your house”) on the helping conversation are considered. A conceptual bridge is made between client and therapist by negotiating (“our house”) the kind of resourceful and supportive dialogue that suits both clients and therapists.

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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.738
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.369 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Activities Assignments & Handouts in Psychotherapy PracticeSame topicCounseling, Therapy, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207