MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158775187 · doi:10.1002/jclp.10068

Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR): Information processing in the treatment of trauma

2002· article· en· W2158775187 on OpenAlexaff
Francine Shapiro, Louise Maxfield

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Psychology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEye movement desensitization and reprocessingPsychologyDesensitization (medicine)PsychotherapistDistressPosttraumatic stressInformation processingPsychological traumaSession (web analytics)Eye movementClinical psychologyCognitive psychologyMedicineNeuroscienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) is an efficacious and efficient treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). This article provides a brief overview of the findings of 20 controlled-outcome studies and describes Shapiro's Adaptive Information Processing model. This model posits that pathology results when distressing experiences are processed inadequately and hypothesizes that EMDR accelerates information processing, resulting in the adaptive resolution of traumatic memories. A detailed description of the eight phases of treatment highlights the procedures, assumptions, and clinical observations that currently guide EMDR clinical practice. A case study, with an in-session transcript, illustrates the application of EMDR to address the past events that have laid the groundwork for dysfunction, the present circumstances that elicit distress, and skills acquisition needed for adaptive functioning.

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)0.006
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.332
GPT teacher head0.554
Teacher spread0.222 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations272
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical PsychologySame topicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207