Creating a Confluence: An Interview With Susan Johnson and John Gottman
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2003, The Family Journal interviewed Dr. Susan Johnson (Jencius, 2003) and Dr. John Gottman (Jencius & Duba, 2003) in individual interviews. This interview is with Drs. Johnson and Gottman together in an attempt to capture the confluence of their mutual influence. Sue Johnson is a professor of psychology and psychiatry at Ottawa University and director of the Ottawa Couple and Family Institute. She is one of the originators and the main proponent of emotionally focused couples therapy (EFT). John Gottman is co-founder of the Gottman Institute, director of the Relationship Research Institute, and emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Washington. Both have done extensive research in the areas of couple relationships, and each maintains an active research and training schedule. This interview took place in November 2003 in Seattle, Washington. For more information about the works of Johnson and Gottman, visit their Web sites at www.eft.ca and www.gottman.com.
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 | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".