MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Essence of Process-Experiential/Emotion-Focused Therapy

2007· review· en· W2135093301 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Elliott, Leslie S. Greenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Psychotherapy · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Therapy and Development
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttunementExperiential learningPsychologyPsychotherapistProcess (computing)Task (project management)Gestalt therapyExistentialismEmpathyGestalt psychologySocial psychologyEpistemologyPedagogyComputer scienceMedicineManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Process-Experiential/Emotion-Focused Therapy (PE-EFT) is an empirically-supported, neo-humanistic approach that integrates and updates person-centered, Gestalt, and existential therapies. In this article, we first present what we see as PE-EFT's five essential features, namely neo-humanistic values, process-experiential emotion theory, person-centered but process-guiding relational stance, therapist exploratory response style, and marker-guided task strategy. Next, we summarize six treatment principles that guide therapists in carrying out this therapy: achieving empathic attunement, fostering an empathic, caring therapeutic bond, facilitating task collaboration, helping the client process experience appropriately to the task, supporting completion of key client tasks, and fostering client development and empowerment. In general, PE-EFT is an approach that seeks to help clients transform contradictions and impasses into wellsprings for growth.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.374 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations97
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of PsychotherapySame topicChild Therapy and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207