MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043408245 · doi:10.1177/0022167804263066

Reflexivity and Personcentered Counseling

2004· article· en· W2043408245 on OpenAlex
David L. Rennie

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 Humanistic Psychology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReflexivityAgency (philosophy)DignityHumanistic psychologyHumanismOntologyPsychologySocial psychologyEpistemologySelfPsychotherapistSociologyPsychoanalysisPhilosophySocial sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is organized around the claim that reflexivity, defined asself-awareness and agency within that self-awareness, isfundamental to being a self. Carl Rogers’s concept of the person is examined inthe light of this claim. It is argued that his notion of the person hasmore to do with ethics than ontology and that his lack of distinctionbetween self and self-concept obscures agency, his tacit recognitionof it in his practice of counseling notwithstanding. HarryFrankfurt’s and Charles Taylor’s writings are drawn on to support this. Itis suggested that the humanistic prizing of the dignity of the client,making up the ethic of person-centered counseling, is both protectedand enhanced once the approach is revised in the light of reflexivity.Implications of this revision for the durability of person-centeredcounseling in a climate of increasing endorsement of manualized,technical approaches to counseling and psychotherapy arediscussed.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.485
Threshold uncertainty score0.579

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.377 · 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