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
Clients' recollections of their experiences of counselling and psychotherapy were stimulated using the technique of Interpersonal Process Recall. Their reports were analysed in terms of the grounded theory method of qualitative research. The analysis resulted in the interpretation that the core category of their experience is clients' reflexivity , or self‐awareness and agency flowing from it and returning to it. The focus of this paper is directed at the client's reflexivity in response to the counsellor's operations. Its organizing theme is that how clients respond to counsellors' operations depends on what clients desire and what they feel they can say safely. Particular desires arise from an over‐arching desire either to enter into or avoid inner experience. Moreover, the relation with self is influenced by the relationship with the therapist. This complexity makes it difficult to predict responses to non‐directive and directive counsellor performances alike. Vignettes selected from the participants' reports illustrate the theme. Implications for the practice of counselling and psychotherapy are 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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