Radical Reflexivity: Rationale for an experiential person-centered approach to counseling and psychotherapy / Radikale Reflexivität: Argumente für einen Experienziellen Personzentrierten Ansatz für Beratung und Psychotherapie / Reflexividad radical: base de fundamentos para un enfoque centrado en la persona-experiencial de la orientación (counseling) y de la psicoterapia
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 In this article qualitative research into the client's experience of therapy is drawn on in support of the concept of radical reflexivity, or awareness of being self-aware, and of how radical reflexivity contributes to agency. Radical reflexivity is applied to the individual's relation with self and others, evaluation of these relationships and the articulation of experiencing. These ramifications are woven into a rationale for an experiential person-centered approach to counseling and psychotherapy. Empathic attunement, process identification, process direction and meta-communication as the main features of the approach are described and their implications for both the therapeutic alliance and the integration of approaches to counseling and psychotherapy are 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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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