MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2538760205 · doi:10.1080/10503307.2016.1238525

The Narrative-Emotion Process Coding System 2.0: A multi-methodological approach to identifying and assessing narrative-emotion process markers in psychotherapy

2016· article· en· W2538760205 on OpenAlex

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychotherapy Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of TorontoYork University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyNarrativeStorytellingNarrative therapyPsychotherapistNarrative inquiryContext (archaeology)ConceptualizationPsychological interventionCognitive psychologyClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Recent studies suggest that it is not simply the expression of emotion or emotional arousal in session that is important, but rather it is the reflective processing of emergent, adaptive emotions, arising in the context of personal storytelling and/or Emotion-Focused Therapy (EFT) interventions, that is associated with change. METHOD: To enhance narrative-emotion integration specifically in EFT, Angus and Greenberg originally identified a set of eight clinically derived narrative-emotion integration markers were originally identified for the implementation of process-guiding therapeutic responses. Further evaluation and testing by the Angus Narrative-Emotion Marker Lab resulted in the identification of 10 empirically validated Narrative-Emotion Process (N-EP) markers that are included in the Narrative-Emotion Process Coding System Version 2.0 (NEPCS 2.0). RESULTS: Based on empirical research findings, individual markers are clustered into Problem (e.g., stuckness in repetitive story patterns, over-controlled or dysregulated emotion, lack of reflectivity), Transition (e.g., reflective, access to adaptive emotions and new emotional plotlines, heightened narrative and emotion integration), and Change (e.g., new story outcomes and self-narrative discovery, and co-construction and re-conceptualization) subgroups. To date, research using the NEPCS 2.0 has investigated the proportion and pattern of narrative-emotion markers in Emotion-Focused, Client-Centered, and Cognitive Therapy for Major Depression, Motivational Interviewing plus Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Generalized Anxiety Disorder, and EFT for Complex Trauma. Results have consistently identified significantly higher proportions of N-EP Transition and Change markers, and productive shifts, in mid- and late phase sessions, for clients who achieved recovery by treatment termination. CONCLUSIONS: Recovery is consistently associated with client storytelling that is emotionally engaged, reflective, and evidencing new story outcomes and self-narrative change. Implications for future research, practice and training are discussed.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.502
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.313
GPT teacher head0.546
Teacher spread0.233 · 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