How Plan Analysis can inform the construction of a therapeutic relationship
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
The construction of a positive therapeutic relationship was shown to be related with outcome in psychotherapy, but there are only a few prescriptive concepts helping the therapist to contribute to such a process. The present case illustrates the use of Plan Analysis (PA) and the motive-oriented therapeutic relationship (MOTR) in the explanation of the construction of a positive therapeutic relationship. We analyze the case of Sharon, a 22-year-old student presenting with major depressive disorder. We present the case formulation according to PA and select Session 7 from the therapeutic process to illustrate three moments of the therapist focus on the underlying motives: (a) a first moment when the therapist presents with nonoptimal features of responding to the patient's profile, (b) a second moment when the therapist intervenes optimally, and (c) a third moment when the therapist intervenes excellently. We discuss this case from the perspective of personalizing 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 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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it