MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807400556 · doi:10.1037/pst0000137

Specific formulation feedback in dynamic-relational group psychotherapy of perfectionism.

2018· article· en· W2807400556 on OpenAlex
Paul L. Hewitt, Samuel F. Mikail, Gordon L. Flett, Silvain S. Dang

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 · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPerfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety Studies
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaAmerican Group Psychotherapy Association
KeywordsPerfectionism (psychology)PsychologyPsycINFOConceptualizationPsychodynamicsPsychotherapistPsychodynamic psychotherapyInterpersonal communicationGroup psychotherapyClinical psychologyIntegrative psychotherapyCountertransferenceSocial psychologyMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we describe how individualized feedback, in the form of a clinical formulation, is used in our dynamic-relational group treatment of perfectionism (Hewitt et al., 2015), a core vulnerability or transdiagnostic personality factor. The authors discuss briefly their conceptualization and assessment of perfectionism as well as other aspects of patients' functioning, and the use of both psychodynamic and interpersonal models to derive, for individual patients, their unique formulation or idiosyncratic model of their perfectionistic and related behavior. Moreover, we describe the process of providing the formulation feedback to each patient in preparation for group psychotherapy and, finally, provide an illustrative case. (PsycINFO Database Record

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.526
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.300 · 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