MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963569845 · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.70.2.406

Resolving unfinished business: Relating process to outcome.

2002· article· en· W1963569845 on OpenAlexaff
Leslie S. Greenberg, Wanda Malcolm

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyGestalt therapyOutcome (game theory)Interpersonal communicationAlliancePsychotherapistPopulationExperiential learningInterpersonal relationshipGestalt psychologyCognitive restructuringProcess (computing)Social psychologyAnxietyPsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study related the process of the resolution of unfinished business with a significant other to therapeutic outcome in a population of 26 clients who suffered from various forms of interpersonal problems and childhood maltreatment. Clients were treated in emotion-focused, experiential therapy with gestalt empty-chair dialogues. Those clients who expressed previously unmet interpersonal needs to the significant other, and manifested a shift in their view of the other, had significantly better treatment outcomes. The presence of the specific process of resolution in the clients' empty-chair dialogues was also found to be a better predictor of outcome than the working alliance. Degree of emotional arousal was found to discriminate between resolvers and nonresolvers.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.062
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.062
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.201
GPT teacher head0.523
Teacher spread0.323 · 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

Citations181
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Consulting and Clinical PsychologySame topicPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207