MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990261676 · doi:10.1521/jsyt.22.1.33.24091

Therapy On Paper: Therapeutic Letters and the Tone of Relationship

2003· article· en· W1990261676 on OpenAlex
Nancy J. Moules

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Systemic Therapies · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsEvocationTone (literature)Harmony (color)PsychologyIntervention (counseling)Therapeutic relationshipContext (archaeology)PsychotherapistSocial psychologySociologyLinguisticsHistoryPsychiatryArtVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article offers a selected piece of interpretive research extracted from the context of a larger doctoral research study, which examined the intervention of therapeutic letters. This particular article highlights one segment of the research involving a family member suffering with the influence of multiple sclerosis on his life and relationships, and the examination of the influence of therapeutic letters in the course of his clinical work at the Family Nursing Unit at the University of Calgary. The findings of this research offer suggestions, not as a template, but as an inspiration and evocation to write therapeutic letters that are attentive to the conservation of tone, harmony, and authenticity, and that are large enough to sustain a meeting of relationship.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it