The alliance in context: Accomplishments, challenges, and future directions.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on the alliance is reviewed in a historic context. Different conceptualizations of the nature and role of the alliance are examined within the framework of theories about the role and function of the relationship in treatment. The evolution of these concepts is cast in the broader context of the current debate concerning an appropriate conceptual framework for empirically supported therapy. Using these perspectives, several persistent challenges are highlighted: the need to develop a clearer definition of the alliance; the challenge of reaching a broad consensus about the alliance's relation to other elements in the therapeutic relationship; and the task of more clearly specifying the role and function of the alliance in different phases of treatment. The paper concludes with an examination of how such a historically informed perspective might offer useful indicators for future research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.018 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.038 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".