MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151062851 · doi:10.1080/10503307.2011.565489

Narrative change in emotion-focused psychotherapy: A study on the evolution of reflection and protest innovative moments

2011· article· en· W2151062851 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

VenuePsychotherapy Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativePsychotherapistPsychologyReflection (computer programming)PsychoanalysisArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Innovative moments (IMs) are exceptions to a client's problematic self-narrative in the therapeutic dialogue. The innovative moments coding system is a tool which tracks five different types of IMs-action, reflection, protest, reconceptualization and performing change. An in-depth qualitative analysis of six therapeutic cases of emotion-focused therapy (EFT) investigated the role of two of the most common IMs-reflection and protest-in both good and poor outcome cases. Through this analysis two subtypes (I and II) of reflection and protest IMs were identified, revealing different evolution patterns. Subtype II of both reflection and protest IMs is significantly higher in the good outcome group, while subtype I of both IMs types does not present statistically significant differences between groups. The evolution from subtype I to subtype II across the therapeutic process seems to reflect a relevant developmental progression in the change process.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.325
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.175 · 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