MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

GIVING ADVICE ON ADVICE‐GIVING: A CONVERSATION ANALYSIS OF KARL TOMM's PRACTICE

2006· article· en· W2076967668 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Marital and Family Therapy · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsAdvice (programming)ConversationDialogical selfConversation analysisSession (web analytics)PsychologyPsychotherapistSet (abstract data type)Family therapyMedical educationSocial psychologyMedicineComputer scienceCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article we challenge a common definition of therapeutic advice as a linear, one-way accomplishment, enacted by therapists toward clients. We also offer a novel conception of advice as a dialogical "performance," to which both therapists and clients contribute. We discuss the results of a conversation analysis of a family therapy session by Karl Tomm, showing sequential practices employed by a family therapist and a family as they jointly work out common ground to set the stage for the therapist's eventual offering of advice. We discuss the results of this study in light of the literature on advice provision in various contexts.

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)0.001
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 score0.515
Threshold uncertainty score0.778

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.273 · 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