Toward an integrative understanding of narrative and emotion processes in Emotion-focused therapy of depression: Implications for theory, research and practice
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
This paper addresses the fundamental contributions of client narrative disclosure in psychotherapy and its importance for the elaboration of new emotional meanings and self understanding in the context of Emotion-focused therapy (EFT) of depression. An overview of the multi-methodological steps undertaken to empirically investigate the contributions of client story telling, emotional differentiation and meaning-making processes (Narrative Processes Coding System; Angus et al., 1999) in EFT treatments of depression is provided, followed by a summary of key research findings that informed the development of a narrative-informed approach to Emotion-focused therapy of depression (Angus & Greenberg, 2011). Finally, the clinical practice and training implications of adopting a research-informed approach to working with narrative and emotion processes in EFT are described, and future research directions discussed.
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 | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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