The Use of Emotionally Focused Therapy with Separated or Divorced Couples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Couples with children who are separated or divorced need to develop a plan for coparenting and the lifelong shared tasks of childrearing. While legally informed programs can offer mediation, these services can miss the underlying conflict that continues to plague postseparation couple relationships and, more importantly, their children. Divorce is a process with multiple transitions for a family, and the couples who separate or divorce may have a history of negative communication patterns that have long corroded their relationship. There is a need to develop a new coparenting relationship that can serve as a foundation for the long-term. The research literature varies in understanding the impact of divorce on children, but there is consistent agreement that parental conflict does affect child maladjustment. Emotionally focused therapy (EFT) is one effective means of working with a couple who are separated or divorced. EFT is an empirically supported couples’ treatment that was developed from attachment, emotion, and systems theories. This article explores the use of Stage 1 of EFT for couples who are separated or divorced, using a case example to further illustrate the model.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".