MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060836512 · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.71.4.773

Comparing the effectiveness of process-experiential with cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy in the treatment of depression.

2003· article· en· W2060836512 on OpenAlex

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 Consulting and Clinical Psychology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPsychotherapistCognitive therapyDysfunctional familyClinical psychologyDistressCognitive behavioral therapyRandomized controlled trialCognitionInterpersonal psychotherapyCoping (psychology)Group psychotherapyExperiential learningBrief psychotherapyExperiential avoidanceAnxietyPsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study compared process-experiential and cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy in the treatment of major depression in a researcher allegiance-balanced randomized clinical trial. Sixty-six clients participated in weekly sessions of psychotherapy for 16 weeks. Clients' level of depression, self-esteem, general symptom distress, and dysfunctional attitudes significantly improved in both therapy groups. Clients in both groups showed significantly lower levels of reactive and suppressive coping strategies and higher reflective coping at the end of treatment. Although outcomes were generally equivalent for the 2 treatments, there was a significantly greater decrease in clients' self-reports of their interpersonal problems in process-experiential than cognitive-behavioral 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 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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.520
Teacher spread0.390 · 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