Ambivalence in emotion-focused therapy for depression: The maintenance of problematically dominant self-narratives
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Ambivalence can be understood as a cyclical movement between an emerging narrative novelty-an Innovative Moment (IM)-and a return to a problematically dominant self-narrative. The return implies that the IM, with its potential for change is devalued right after its emergence. Our goal is to test the hypothesis that the probability of the client expressing such form of ambivalence decreases across treatment in good-outcome cases but not in poor-outcome cases. METHOD: Return-to-the-Problem Markers (RPMs) signaling moments of devaluation of IMs were coded in passages containing IMs in six clients with major depression treated with emotion-focused therapy: three good-outcome cases and three poor-outcome cases. RESULTS: The percentage of IMs with RPMs decreased across therapy in good-outcome cases, whereas it remained unchanged and high in the poor-outcome cases. CONCLUSIONS: These results were consistent with the theoretical suggestion that therapeutic failure may be associated with this form of ambivalence.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it