Cohesion and Outcome in Short-Term Psychodynamic Groups for Complicated Grief
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
This study used two measures of cohesion for the process analysis of 12 short-term, time-limited groups for complicated grief. The measures had similar theoretical definitions but differed in terms of rater source (member vs. observer), measurement score (mean of items vs. global rating), and rating unit (individual vs. group). We examined the relationship between the measures, assessed the development of cohesion over the life of the group, and evaluated each measure's relationship to outcome. A principal components analysis with each measure yielded one cohesion component, which supported a unidimensional model; however, the two cohesion components were independent of each other, which supported a multidimensional model. Repeated measures analyses indicated that observer-rated cohesion developed in a quadratic manner (v pattern) across sessions, while member-rated cohesion developed in a linear manner. The object focus (the group, other members, the therapist) of the members' ratings determined whether cohesion increased or decreased across sessions. No significant relationships between cohesion and outcome were identified. Implications of the findings for the understanding of group cohesion are considered.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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