Reassessing Rogers' necessary and sufficient conditions of change.
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 article reviews the impact of Carl Rogers' postulate about the necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic change on the field of psychotherapy. It is proposed that his article (see record 2007-14630-002) made an impact in two ways; first, by acting as a spur to researchers to identify the active ingredients of therapeutic change; and, second, by providing guidelines for therapeutic practice. The role of the necessary and sufficient conditions in process-experiential therapy, an emotion-focused therapy for individuals, and their limitations in terms of research and practice are discussed. It is proposed that although the conditions are necessary and important in promoting clients' affect regulation, they do not take sufficient account of other moderating variables that affect clients' response to treatment and may need to be balanced with more structured interventions. Notwithstanding, Rogers highlighted a way of interacting with clients that is generally acknowledged as essential to effective psychotherapy practice. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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