Integrating core conflictual relationship themes in neurobiological assessment of interpersonal processes in psychotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Interpersonal processes are a key target in counselling and psychotherapy. It is of paramount importance to sharpen their assessment using integrated methods. Hence, this methodological paper describes how fields of research in psychotherapy and neuroimaging can be integrated into one novel complementary neurobehavioural paradigm that can be applied to enhance our understanding of interpersonal processes in psychotherapy. To illustrate this integration, we present selected data from a pre–post pilot study where the authors assessed interpersonal processes in brief treatment for borderline personality disorder using the core conflictual relationship theme, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and outcome questionnaires. To do so, they measured individual changes in neural activity using an fMRI task pre‐ and post‐treatment where clients gave feedback on the emotional valence of sentences extracted from their own Relationship Anecdotes Paradigm interviews mixed with neutral ones. In this paper, using data from two participants of said study, we discuss how to implement this methodology and what can be achieved in terms of results.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".