MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165781556 · doi:10.1002/jclp.20251

The path to a secure bond: Emotionally focused couple therapy

2006· article· en· W2165781556 on OpenAlex
Susan M. Johnson, Paul S. Greenman

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

VenueJournal of Clinical Psychology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en OutaouaisUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySession (web analytics)Experiential learningPsychotherapistAnxietyPerspective (graphical)RestructuringExposure therapyAttachment theorySocial psychologyCognitive psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emotionally focused therapy (EFT) for couples combines experiential and systemic techniques to expand emotional responses and cycles of interaction. This approach has also been used to treat depression, chronic illness, and anxiety disorders. EFT appears to translate well across culture and class, focusing on universal key emotions and attachment needs. From the EFT perspective, adult love is a hardwired, adaptive attachment response. The therapist's in-session focus is on the processing of emotions and key interactional patterns as they occur in the present, because emotional experiences are the primary instruments of change in this approach. The therapist is a relationship consultant who offers a safe platform whereby each partner can distill, expand, and transform experience and find new ways to connect with the other. The case presented here illustrates the three stages of EFT: de-escalation, restructuring interactions, and consolidation.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.534
Teacher spread0.433 · 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