The relationship between therapeutic engagement, cognitive errors, and coping action patterns: An exploratory study
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
Abstract Aim: This exploratory study examined the relationship between clients’ involvement in therapy and their cognitive errors (CE) and coping action patterns (CAP). Method: Therapy sessions from N = 26 clients were rated for CE and CP using the CE and CAP methods. Client involvement was measured with the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule, as well as the . Results: The CEs’ ‘magnification of the negative or minimisation of the positive’ and ‘labelling’ were associated with measures of affective therapeutic engagement. The coping styles ‘negotiation’, ‘opposition’, ‘submission’, ‘isolation’, ‘support seeking’, ‘information seeking’, ‘delegation’, and ‘escape’ were found to be associated with affective and behavioural dimensions of therapeutic involvement. Conclusions: These findings provide preliminary supporting evidence that CE and CP are related to the extent to which clients engage in the work of therapy. Implications for researchers and therapists are discussed.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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