An Emotionally Focused Workbook for Couples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This workbook is intended for use with couples who want to enhance their emotional connection or overcome their relationship distress. It is recommended for use with couples pursuing Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT). It closely follows the course of treatment and is designed so that clinicians can easily integrate guided reading and reflections into the therapeutic process. The material is presented in a recurring format: Read, Reflect, and Discuss. Readings help couples look at their relationship through an attachment lens, walking them through the step-by-step process of creating a secure relationship bond. 33 Reflections invite readers to engage with the material personally, expanding their own awareness and ability to tune into their partner. Discussion sections suggest relationship-building exercises and a framework for conversations that promote safety, disclosure, and engagement. Case examples, along with informative illustrations, are scattered throughout the book to validate, illustrate, and inspire couples along their journey. Clinicians conversant with EFT can use this workbook to extend the effectiveness of their work with couples by giving them structured tasks to work on between sessions. For clinicians training in EFT, the book can guide them in staying focused on the EFT roadmap and illuminate how important change events unfold.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.086 | 0.031 |
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".