MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106956054 · doi:10.1300/j009v27n01_05

“If We Are All in the Same Canoe, Why Are We Using Different Paddles?”: The Effective Use of Common Themes in Diverse Group Situation

2004· article· en· W2106956054 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

VenueSocial Work With Groups · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMontreal General HospitalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Context (archaeology)Psychological interventionPsychologyGroup workHomogeneousPromotion (chess)Social psychologyGroup processSurvivorship curvePsychotherapistFocus groupAddictionProcess (computing)Group psychotherapyGroup (periodic table)SociologyComputer sciencePsychiatryPolitical sciencePedagogyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This paper demonstrates several important ideas in therapeutic group work. Seemingly homogeneous groups contain a wide range of etiologies, needs, and expectations among clients. Group facilitators benefit from the perspective that while differences abound, certain interventions help establish global themes which further the progress of the group while validating the specific context of individual client situations. Nine emotion-focused, process-oriented themes that arise frequently in domestic violence, addictions, and survivorship group work are presented; samples of therapist responses illustrate how a focus on these global themes can further group process through the promotion of emotional safety, collaboration, validation and client self-disclosure.

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)0.000
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 score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.287 · 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