Cognitive errors, coping patterns, and the therapeutic alliance: A pilot study of in‐session process
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 association between clients’ assessment of the therapeutic alliance and their cognitive errors (CE) and coping action patterns (CAP). Method: Selected therapy sessions of clients ( N = 26) were rated for cognitive errors and coping action patterns using the CERS and CAPRS methods (Drapeau, Perry, & Dunkley, 2008; Perry, Drapeau, & Dunkley, 2005). The therapeutic alliance was assessed using the Working Alliance Inventory (WAI; Horvath & Greenberg, 1989). Results: Following Bonferroni corrections, no significant relationship was found between clients’ CEs and their ratings of the WAI. However, the ‘Negotiation’ CAP was associated with the total alliance score, and with the Task and Goal subscales. Implications: A better understanding of the cognitive processes presented by clients in session can enable clinicians to address these factors early on when the alliance is most critical.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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