You can't step into the same river twice, but you can stub your toes on the same rock: Psychotherapy outcome from a 50-year perspective.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
H.H. Strupp's 1963 article, The Outcome Problem in Psychotherapy Revisited, and the exchange between Eysenck and Strupp that followed the article were reexamined to answer the question: What, if anything, has changed in the world of psychotherapy research over half a century since the article was originally published? Many of the issues that provided the impetus for the article and the focal point of the passionate debate between Strupp and Eysenck have been long put to rest. Much has been accomplished: Debates in the literature have became more civil, generic factors such as the therapy relationship have received strong empirical support, and researchers' attention has shifted from the broad question whether psychotherapy offers real benefits to patients to providing empirical support for closely prescribed treatments for specific disorders. However, some of the core issues raised in the article concerning how to measure and meaningfully appraise the benefits of psychotherapy are still a challenge today. Some possible avenues for future developments are explored.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it