MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038116536 · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.71.6.1007

Emotional Processing During Experiential Treatment of Depression.

2003· article· en· W2038116536 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoYork University
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsPsychologyMultilevel modelInterpersonal communicationExperiential learningClinical psychologyDepression (economics)Developmental psychologyPsychotherapistSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explored the importance of early and late emotional processing to change in depressive and general symptomology, self-esteem, and interpersonal problems for 34 clients who received 16-20 sessions of experiential treatment for depression. The independent contribution to outcome of the early working alliance was also explored. Early and late emotional processing predicted reductions in reported symptoms and gains in self-esteem. More important, emotional-processing skill significantly improved during treatment. Hierarchical regression models demonstrated that late emotional processing both mediated the relationship between clients' early emotional processing capacity and outcome and was the sole emotional-processing variable that independently predicted improvement. After controlling for emotional processing, the working alliance added an independent contribution to explaining improvement in reported symptomology only.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.456
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.399 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it