MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968705041 · doi:10.1348/147608306x115198

Getting clients to hear: Applying principles and techniques of Kiesler's Interpersonal Communication Therapy to assessment feedback

2006· review· en· W1968705041 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology and Psychotherapy Theory Research and Practice · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological Testing and Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpersonal communicationContext (archaeology)Process (computing)Information and Communications TechnologyPsychologyComputer scienceApplied psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Limited attention has been paid to the process of providing assessment feedback and few concrete recommendations exist for the practicing clinician. The author proposes that principles and techniques of Kiesler's (1979, 1982, 1988, 1996) Interpersonal Communication Therapy (ICT) can be applied to guide the provision of assessment feedback. Using such an approach has the potential to increase the likelihood that information is heard, accepted, integrated, and acted upon. A review of current research on the provision of assessment results is supplied along with a description of basic ICT principles and techniques. Practical suggestions for applying elements of ICT in this context are given along with a discussion of the rationale for integrating such a model into the assessment process.

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.

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)0.013
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.372
GPT teacher head0.599
Teacher spread0.228 · 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