Client perceptions of hindering experiences in counselling
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to increase understanding of what clients perceive as hindering experiences in counselling. In‐depth interviews combined with concept mapping were used to gather, organize, and understand clients' perceptions of hindering aspects of therapy. In the initial data gathering stage, 8 adult client participants, aged 18 or older (average of 14.1 sessions) were asked to respond to the following open‐ended questions: (a)What was unhelpful or hindering about counselling? (b)What would have made counselling more helpful? In the second phase of the data gathering, a sample of 20 participants (7 male, 13 female) were asked to participate in the sorting and rating task utilizing statements derived from the interviews. The analysis produced a thematic structure that identified three core aspects of counselling that clients found hindering: (1) counsellor behaviours, (2) external and structural barriers and (3) client variables. Implications for practitioners are included in the discussion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it