Processes involved in client-nominated relationship building incidents: Client attachment, attachment to therapist, and session impact.
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
Thirty volunteer clients of trainee therapists nominated an incident that was critical in the development of their therapeutic relationship. Clients completed the Client Attachment to Therapist Scale (CATS), the Experiences in Close Relationships Scale (ECRS), and the Session Impacts Scale (SIS). Clients reported an increase in attachment security with their therapists, along with perceptions of support and relief and increasing exploration following the relationship building incident. While clients' avoidant attachment was unrelated to attachment to the therapist prior to the incidents, in subsequent sessions avoidance was related to a change in secure attachment to therapist. Finally, client attachment to therapist but not general attachment was significantly related to in-session exploration. Findings are discussed in light of attachment theory and convergence with findings from the field of social psychology. (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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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