MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069795020 · doi:10.1037/0022-0167.48.2.123

Guided imagery and memory: Implications for psychotherapists.

2001· article· en· W2069795020 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 Counseling Psychology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological Testing and Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyGuided imageryCognitive psychologyMental imagePsychotherapistPsychoanalysisCognitionAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Imagery techniques involve the mental generation of perceptual experiences in the absence of external perceptual stimulation. Such techniques are used for many purposes in psychotherapy but have recently come under attack as a risky practice that may result in memory distortion or the creation of false memories. This article reviews research linking imagery with changes in memory, both to sensitize clinicians to possible inappropriate applications of guided imagery techniques and to discourage researchers from understating the potential utility of guided imagery. The implications of this research for the psychotherapeutic use of imagery are discussed, and strategies for using imagery while reducing the potential for memory distortion are described.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.352
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.347 · 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