Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twenty four in therapy client performances were analysed in order to describe patterns related to conflict resolution. Twelve Gestalt events in which resolution was achieved were compared with twelve nonresolution events. Both groups, resolved and unresolved, were analyzed using three measures,-- 1) Experiencing scale; 2) Structural Analysis of Social Behavior, and 3) Vocal Quality Scale. Using these measures, the groups were divided into the three phases of conflict resolution--opposition, merging and resolution. In Gestalt, therapy, the client engages in a dialogue with himself to explore the two sides of the conflict. He usually moves from one chair to another, these chairs are known as the "experiencing" and "other" chair. In this study each chair was analyzed independently. The main hypothesis, that resolution events exhibit specific phase related behaviors that are not evident in non-resolution events, was tested using a number of comparisons. These comparisons between groups, between phases and between the two chairs indicate that the two groups are different and that there are three identifiable phases in a resolution event. The pattern of resolution begins with the two chairs in the opposition phase rejecting each other. This is indicated by a difference in level of Experiencing and uncooperative interaction as measured by S.A.S.B. The merging phase is when the two chairs begin to engage in productive dialogue. The other chair "softens" toward the experiencing chair, as indicated by a change in the vocal quality at the merging point. Also during this phase, the level of experiencing of the other chair increases to the level of the experiencing chair. The resolution phase is identified by the lack of difference between the two chairs; they apparently come together and function as one.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".