MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A New Look at Existential Psychotherapy

2006· article· en· W32928766 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

VenueAmerican Journal of Psychotherapy · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Therapy and Development
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychotherapistExistentialismPsychologyPsychoanalysisPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Existential psychotherapy has remained on the fringes of the mainstream practice of psychotherapy. One reason for its limited acceptance is that the literature has tended to be convoluted and existential psychotherapists' ideas heterogeneous. Another reason is the dearth of empirical validation studies. What if a more succinct, well-defined and research-friendly model of existential psychotherapy could be developed? An argument against such a manualized approach is that making the model more mechanized and structured goes against some of the tenets of existential psychotherapy. Another argument is that the heterogeneity of the field prohibits manualization of existential psychotherapy. Although these reservations have some legitimacy, the purpose of this paper is to develop a more clinically oriented adaptation of existential psychology and lay the groundwork for a manualized approach to existential psychotherapy.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.546
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.290 · 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