Clients’ Relational Conceptions of Conjoint Couple and Family Therapy Quality: A Grounded Formal Theory
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
Based upon a qualitative metasynthesis of 49 articles centered on clients' experiences of their conjoint couple and family therapy, the investigators constructed a grounded formal theory of Clients' Relational Conceptions of Conjoint Couple and Family Therapy Quality. The theory suggests from pretherapy conceptions to posttherapy reflections, clients' perceptions of conjoint couple and family therapy quality appear to consist of clients' constructed meanings regarding a series of interrelated relationships between clients and their therapists and therapy environments, between clients and themselves, between clients and other family members, and between process and outcome both inside and outside therapy. Within and across these relationships, clients appear to focus on expectations, connections, balance, and change when evaluating the quality of their clinical experiences. Based upon this theory, the investigators recommend that researchers continue to explore this clinical phenomenon and that therapists regularly seek clients' conceptions of quality in 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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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