Contrasting Two Clients in Emotion-Focused Therapy for Depression 2: The Case of "Eloise," "It's Like Opening the Windows and Letting the Fresh Air Come In"
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
This paper presents a good-outcome case of "Eloise," an individual drawn from the York II Depression study and treated with emotion-focused therapy (EFT) (Goldman, Greenberg, & Angus, 2006). Using the case comparison method, this study considers data from an observer-rated measure of emotional processing during therapy, the client's perceptions of change as measured by post-session and post-therapy questionnaires, the therapist's perceptions of change as measured by post-session reports, and post-therapy interview data, to form an understanding of factors that contributed to change. Eloise's case study is designed to compare and contrast with Watson, Goldman, and Greenberg's (2011) case study of Tom, a poor-outcome case drawn from a similar RCT. The Eloise and Tom case studies extend and build upon the cases presented by the authors of Case Studies in Emotion-Focused Treatment of Depression: A Comparison of Good and Poor Outcome (Watson, Goldman, & Greenberg, 2007), which consist of three good outcome and three poor outcome clients compared and contrasted using the case-comparison method.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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