MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimizing the Alliance in Couple Therapy

2004· article· en· W2002397116 on OpenAlexaff
Dianne Symonds, Adam O. Horvath

Bibliographic record

VenueFamily Process · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityKwantlen Polytechnic University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAllianceAllegiancePsychologyOutcome (game theory)PsychotherapistPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The complexity of the relation between alliance and outcome in couple therapy was investigated in a study of 47 couples in brief therapy. Self-rated alliance was measured after the first and third sessions using the couple version of the Working Alliance Inventory. The results indicated that the correlation between alliance and outcome was significantly stronger when the partners agreed about the strength of the alliance, when the male partner's alliance was stronger than the female's, and when the strength of both partners' alliance increased as therapy progressed. The authors suggest that a unique feature of couple therapy is that the partners have both a preexisting relationship with each other (allegiance) and an alliance with the therapist to balance.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.322 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations144
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFamily ProcessSame topicPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207