Client and therapist views of contextual factors related to termination from psychotherapy: A comparison between unilateral and mutual terminators
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
Contextual variables potentially influencing premature termination were examined. Clients (n=83) and therapists (n=35) provided parallel data on early working alliance, psychotherapy termination decision (unilateral vs. mutual), clients' reasons for termination, and barriers to treatment participation. When clients unilaterally ended therapy, therapists were only partially aware of either the extent of clients' perceived improvements or their dissatisfaction. When termination was mutually determined, there were no differences between client and therapist ratings of termination reasons. Although working alliance and barriers to treatment participation were rated as lower in the context of unilateral termination by clients and therapists, all clients rated the early alliance and barriers to treatment more highly than did therapists. Results have implications for understanding premature termination and suggest future research examining the utility of therapist feedback regarding contextual variables in terms of retaining clients in therapy.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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