Therapeutic Presence: Therapists' experience of presence in the psychotherapy encounter / Therapeutische Präsenz: Erfahrungen von Therapeuten mit Präsenz in der psychotherapeutischen Begegnung / La Presencia Terapéutica: La Experiencia de la Presencia que Viven los Terapeutas en el Encuentro Psicoterapéutico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A qualitative study was conducted with expert therapists who are proponents or have written about presence and its importance in psychotherapy. Based on a qualitative analysis of therapists' reports, a working model of therapeutic presence was developed. This included three emergent domains. One domain entails preparing the ground for presence, referring to the pre-session and general life preparation for therapeutic presence. The second domain describes the process of presence, the processes or activities the person is engaged in when being therapeutically present. The third domain reflects the actual in-session experience of presence. Presence is discussed as the foundation of Rogers' basic conditions of empathy, congruence and unconditional positive regard and as the overarching condition that allows them to be expressed.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".