Forgiveness and Therapy: A Critical Review of Conceptualizations, Practices, and Values Found in the Literature
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
This article is a critical review of how forgiveness is conceptualized in the family therapy, counseling, and clinical psychology literature. A systematic analysis of themes in a fairly comprehensive set of texts was carried out. Three main dimensions emerged along which therapist authors' viewpoints can be located: essentiality, intentionality, and benevolence. Therapy practices and values that correspond with positions along these dimensions are presented. The analysis reveals that greater exploration is needed regarding how forgiveness is related to diversity (e.g., gender, culture, religion, etc.), marginalization, and relations of power. Our objective is to provide a conceptual map for clinicians so that they might locate their own thinking about forgiveness and be better equipped to work sensitively with the forgiveness views and values of their clients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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