Talking Societal Discourses Into Family Therapy: A Situational Analysis of the Relationships Between Societal Expectations and Parent-Child Conflict
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
Using the processes of Research As Daily Practice, we looked for the connections between parent-child conflict and the messages society promotes as to how parents and children should behave together. In our family therapy practices we noticed parents and children relating to each other in ways that seemed to resemble efforts to try to follow the more than engaging in local or situation-specific ways that reflected their circumstances. If our hunch was valid, we wondered how we might include talk about these societal discourses in therapy sessions to help families deal more effectively with the stress and conflict within their families. We conducted a situational analysis using data consisting of clinicians' impressions of (a) the pathologizing interpersonal patterns (PIPs) within their client families and (b) the societal discourses believed to be taken up by families. The result was practice-based evidence in the form of a set of clinical questions that invite societal discourses into family therapy conversations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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