MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139502584 · doi:10.4081/ripppo.2012.105

Narrative Processes Coding System: A Dialectical Constructivist Approach to Assessing Client Change Processes in Emotion-Focused Therapy of Depression

2013· article· en· W2139502584 on OpenAlexaff
Lynne Angus, Jennifer Lewin, Tali Boritz, Emily Bryntwick, Naomi Carpenter, James Watson-Gaze, Leslie S. Greenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch in Psychotherapy Psychopathology Process and Outcome · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeReflexivityStorytellingPsychologyDialecticNarrative therapyPsychotherapistMeaning-makingMeaning (existential)Coding (social sciences)Dialectical behavior therapyNarrative inquiryEpistemologySociologyLinguisticsSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drawing on a Dialectical Constructivist model of therapeutic change, this paper addresses the fundamental contributions of client narrative disclosure, emotional differentiation and reflexive meaning-making processes in emotion-focused treatments of depression. An overview of the multi-methodological steps undertaken to empirically investigate the contributions of client storytelling, emotional differentiation, and meaning-making processes, using the Narrative Processes Coding System (NPCS; Angus et al., 1999) are provided, followed by a summary of key research findings that informed the development of a narrative-informed approach to emotion-focused therapy of depression (Angus & Greenberg, 2011). Finally, therapy practice implications for the adoption of a research-informed approach to working with narrative and emotion processes in emotion-focused therapy are described and future research directions discussed.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.175
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations18
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch in Psychotherapy Psychopathology Process and OutcomeSame topicPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207