Humanistic psychotherapy research 1990–2015: From methodological innovation to evidence-supported treatment outcomes and beyond
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
OBJECTIVE: Over the past 25 years, humanistic psychotherapy (HP) researchers have actively contributed to the development and implementation of innovative practice-informed research measures and coding systems. METHOD: Qualitative and quantitative research findings, including meta-analyses, support the identification of HP approaches as evidence-based treatments for a variety of psychological conditions. RESULTS: Implications for future psychotherapy research, training, and practice are discussed in terms of addressing the persistent disjunction between significant HP research productivity and relatively low support for HP approaches in university-based clinical training programs, funding agencies, and government-supported clinical guidelines. CONCLUSION: Finally, specific recommendations are provided to further enhance and expand the impact of HP research for clinical training programs and the development of treatment guidelines.
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 | 0.017 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 it