Extramarital Affairs: Basic Considerations and Essential Tasks in Clinical Work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among heterosexual couples extramarital affairs are common and they occur with regular frequency. In the short term, the discovery of an affair generally precludes a crisis for both partners and where this is not resolved, negative longer-term effects can be expected. In this article we discuss a number of key issues that have implications for practitioners working with these individuals and couples. At some point in their professional lives all counselors will encounter the dilemmas and challenges associated with a client's infidelity and they will therefore want to keep up-to-date about clinical and empirical developments. In addition to a discussion of the relevant literature, we highlight three specific aspects of working with individuals and couples that are an inherent part of this work. The three areas of handling disclosures, dealing with traumatic reactions, and fostering forgiveness are seen as unavoidable features of working with the complexities of marital infidelity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".