Guidelines for Classifying Evidence-Based Treatments in Couple and Family Therapy
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
Guidelines for Evidence-Based Treatments in Family Therapy are intended to help guide clinicians, researchers, and policy makers in identifying specific clinical interventions and treatment programs for couples and families that have scientifically based evidence to support their efficacy. In contrast to criteria, which simply identify treatments that "work" and have been employed in the evaluation of other psychotherapies, these guidelines propose a three-tiered levels-of-evidence-based model that moves from "evidence-informed," to "evidence-based," to "evidence-based and ready for dissemination and transportation within diverse community settings." Each level reflects an interaction between the specificity of the intervention, the strength and readth of the outcomes, and the quality of the studies that form the evidence. These guidelines uniquely promote a clinically based "matrix" approach in which the empirical support is evaluated according to various dimensions including strength of the outcomes, the applicability across cultural contexts, and demonstration of specific change mechanisms. The guidelines are offered not only as a basis for understanding the evidence for diverse clinical approaches in couple and family therapy within the systemic tradition of the field, but also as an alternative aspirational model for evaluating all psychotherapies.
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) | 0.000 | 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