Analogous Systems Principles and Concepts of Traditional Chinese Medicine and Congruence Couple Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explicates the analogous principles and concepts between traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and congruence couple therapy (CCT). Although originating out of vastly different times and places, TCM and CCT share a view of health based on systems understanding to facilitate the interconnections of the parts of an organism rather than focusing on eliminating symptoms. Both approaches aim to release Qi（气） and vitality by removing blockages through adjusting the interactions, adaptation, and balance of multiple elements and Yin-Yang energies. The goal is to liberate the Qi or life force through improved holistic balance and cooperation. While TCM focuses on interventions at the level of the body, CCT focuses on the attention, awareness, acknowledgement, and alignment of the four human dimensions consisting of the intrapsychic, interpersonal, intergenerational, and universal-spiritual. In light of the current trend toward increasing mental, substance use, and neurological disorders, in particular among countries of middle and low income, dialogue to explore these compatibilities between TCM and CCT is conducive to the continuous evolution of TCM and Western therapies to address not only physical health but also the exigencies of contemporary addiction and mental health care within a mind–body relationship matrix.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".