MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099020186 · doi:10.1521/ijgp.2005.55.4.527

Level of Alliance, Pattern of Alliance, and Outcome in Short–term Group Therapy

2005· article· en· W2099020186 on OpenAlex
William E. Piper, John S. Ogrodniczuk, Christine Lamarche, Tamara Hilscher, Anthony S. Joyce

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

VenueInternational Journal of Group Psychotherapy · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAllianceOutcome (game theory)PsychologyGriefPsychotherapistClinical psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the relationships between initial level of alliance, pattern of alliance over sessions, and outcome in a sample of 107 patients who completed short-term group therapy for complicated grief. Both patient-rated alliance and therapist-rated alliance were studied. For patient-rated alliance, both the initial level of alliance and the linear pattern of alliance were directly and significantly related to favorable outcome. For therapist-rated alliance, no significant direct relationships with outcome were found. Instead, significant interaction effects were found. For patients with relatively high initial alliance, the greater the increase in alliance over sessions, the better the outcome. For patients with relatively low initial alliance, the greater the decrease in alliance over sessions, the better the outcome. Explanations for the findings are considered as well as possible clinical implications.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.618
Threshold uncertainty score0.909

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.310 · 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