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.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".