Therapeutic collaboration and resistance: Describing the nature and quality of the therapeutic relationship within ambivalence events using the Therapeutic Collaboration Coding System
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
OBJECTIVES: We understand ambivalence as a cyclical movement between two opposing parts of the self. The emergence of a novel part produces an innovative moment, challenging the current maladaptive self-narrative. However, the novel part is subsequently attenuated by a return to the maladaptive self-narrative. This study focused on the analysis of the therapeutic collaboration in episodes in which a relatively poor-outcome client in narrative therapy expressed ambivalence. METHOD: For our analysis we used the Therapeutic Collaboration Coding System, developed to assess whether and how the therapeutic dyad is working within the therapeutic zone of proximal development (TZPD). RESULTS: Results showed that when the therapist challenged the client after the emergence of ambivalence, the client tended to invalidate (reject or ignore) the therapist's intervention. CONCLUSIONS: This suggests that in such ambivalence episodes the therapist did not match the client's developmental level, and by working outside the TZPD unintentionally contributed to the maintaining the client's ambivalence.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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