MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990373313 · doi:10.1037/a0014334

Systemic-constructivist couple therapy (SCCT): Description of approach, theoretical advances, and published longitudinal evidence.

2008· article· en· W1990373313 on OpenAlex
David Reid, Faye K. Doell, Erin Dalton, Saunia Ahmad

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.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychotherapy · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersYork University
KeywordsIntrapersonal communicationPsychologyPsycINFOInterpersonal communicationContext (archaeology)PsychotherapistIntervention (counseling)Developmental psychologySocial psychologyMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The systemic-constructivist approach to studying and benefiting couples was derived from qualitative and quantitative research on distressed couples over the past 10 years. Systemic-constructivist couple therapy (SCCT) is the clinical intervention that accompanies the approach. SCCT guides the therapist to work with both the intrapersonal and the interpersonal aspects of marriage while also integrating the social-environmental context of the couple. The theory that underlies SCCT is explained, including concepts such as we-ness and interpersonal processing. The primary components of the therapy are described. Findings described previously in an inaugural monograph containing extensive research demonstrating the long-term utility of SCCT are reviewed. (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.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.740

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.307 · 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