MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067121749 · doi:10.1002/jclp.20252

Emotion in psychotherapy: A practice‐friendly research review

2006· review· en· W2067121749 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 Clinical Psychology · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WindsorYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPsychotherapistSession (web analytics)ArousalMeaning (existential)Experiential learningAnxietySocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reviews the process and outcome research on emotion in psychotherapy. Four distinct types of emotion processes are identified in the literature as useful in therapy, depending on a client's presenting concerns: emotional awareness and arousal; emotional regulation, active reflection on emotion (meaning making), and emotional transformation. Research findings are summarized to highlight the practical implications of these different emotion processes to psychotherapy. A range of selected treatments from different therapeutic orientations are addressed collectively as different types of emotion-focused, experiential therapies and are compared on the basis of how they work with emotion in session.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.588
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0020.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.628
GPT teacher head0.726
Teacher spread0.098 · 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