MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4232408257 · doi:10.22316/poc/05.1.09

Working with ‘difficult’ clients from a systems perspective

2020· article· en· W4232408257 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Be Pannell

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophy of Coaching An International Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychiatric care and mental health services
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)PsychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Difficult or recalcitrant clients can be the bane of any executive coach's practice. Although cognitive behavioural approaches to coaching are effective for mainstream clients, they can fail to consider more nuanced aspects of the coaching dynamic. Psychodynamic theories, originating from Freud, seek to address unconscious patterns of interpersonal attachment and defensiveness that are considered the root cause of difficult interpersonal behaviour. However, these theories tend to focus on binary relationships and can fail to account for the overall system within which these relationships occur. In the following, a case conceptualisation framework for difficult clients is developed by combining psychodynamic models with family systems theory. Practical applications for coaching and coaching supervision are considered.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.258
Threshold uncertainty score0.459

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilosophy of Coaching An International JournalSame topicPsychiatric care and mental health servicesFrench-language works237,207