MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006247748 · doi:10.1002/cpp.521

Early change in maladaptive defence style and development of the therapeutic alliance

2007· article· en· W2006247748 on OpenAlexaff
Gilles Ambresin, Yves de Roten, Martin Drapeau, Jean‐Nicolas Despland

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Psychology & Psychotherapy · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlliancePsychodynamicsPsychologyIntervention (counseling)PsychotherapistDistressPsychodynamic psychotherapyAnxietyClinical psychologySession (web analytics)Psychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study examined the early change in maladaptive defence style (MDS), the development of the therapeutic alliance and the relationship between MDS and alliance in a short psychodynamic intervention. Sixty‐eight outpatients from a psychiatric clinic completed a four‐session psychodynamic intervention. Defence and alliance measures were collected at the intake and the final session. Patients who began the intervention with a poor alliance but ended with a good alliance (linear growth therapeutic alliance group) significantly decreased their use of maladaptive defences over the course of therapy, while patients in the high and low alliance groups did not. Results showed that at the end of the intervention, MDS and alliance were related across all patients. This relation concerned particularly the linear growth therapeutic alliance profile. These results suggest that the developing therapeutic alliance might reflect the collaborative work between the patient and the therapist as they try to understand the causes of the crisis. This understanding might help reduce maladaptive defences that were initially activated to ward off anxiety and distress. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.558
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.229
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations13
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Psychology & PsychotherapySame topicPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207