MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996696574 · doi:10.1111/famp.12015

Process Research on Emotionally Focused Therapy (<scp>EFT</scp>) for Couples: Linking Theory to Practice

2012· review· en· W1996696574 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueFamily Process · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversité du Québec en OutaouaisMontfort Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychotherapistPsychologyPerspective (graphical)Psychological interventionProcess (computing)Outcome (game theory)Attachment theoryFamily therapyClinical PracticeSocial psychologyMedicineComputer sciencePsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The focus of this article is on the link among theory, process, and outcome in the practice of Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT) for couples. We describe the EFT model of change and the EFT perspective on adult love as the reflection of underlying attachment processes. We outline the manner in which theory and research inform EFT interventions. This leads into a detailed review of the literature on the processes of change in EFT. We highlight the client responses and therapist operations that have emerged from process research and their relation to treatment outcomes. We discuss the implications of this body of research for clinical practice and training.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.304
GPT teacher head0.570
Teacher spread0.266 · 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