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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Congruence or genuineness is a relationship element with an extensive and important history within psychotherapy. Congruence is an aspect of the therapy relationship with two facets, one intrapersonal and one interpersonal. Mindful genuineness, personal awareness, and authenticity characterize the intrapersonal element. The capacity to respectfully and transparently give voice to ones' experience to another person characterizes the interpersonal component. Although most fully developed in the person-centered tradition, congruence is highly valued in many theoretical orientations. In this article, we define and provide clinical examples of congruence. We also present an original meta-analysis of its relation with psychotherapy improvement. An analysis of 21 studies (k), representing 1,192 patients (N), resulted in a weighted aggregate effect size (r) of .23 (95% confidence interval = [.13, .32]) or an estimated d of .46. Moderators of the association between congruence and outcome are also investigated. In closing, we address patient contributions, limitations of the extant research, diversity considerations, and therapeutic practices that might promote congruence and improve psychotherapy outcomes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.003 |
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 it