MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2764335002 · doi:10.1111/jmft.12284

The Impact of Blamer‐softening on Romantic Attachment in Emotionally Focused Couples Therapy

2017· article· en· W2764335002 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Marital and Family Therapy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSofteningPsychologyDistressAnxietyAttachment theoryClinical psychologyMultilevel modelPsychotherapistDevelopmental psychologyMaterials sciencePsychiatryComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emotionally Focused Couples Therapy (EFT; Johnson, ) treats relationship distress by targeting couples' relationship-specific attachment insecurity. In this study, we used hierarchical linear modeling (Singer & Willett, ) to examine intercept and slope discontinuities in softened couples' trajectories of change in relationship satisfaction and relationship-specific attachment over the course of therapy from a total sample of 32 couples. Softened couples (n = 16) reported a significant increase in relationship satisfaction and a significant decrease in attachment avoidance at the softening session. Although softened couples displayed an initial increase in relationship-specific attachment anxiety at the softening session, their scores significantly decreased across post-softening sessions. Results demonstrated the importance of the blamer-softening change event in facilitating change in EFT.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.358 · 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