MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292165767 · doi:10.1002/cpp.388

Emotion–focused therapy

2004· article· en· W4292165767 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

VenueClinical Psychology & Psychotherapy · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational and Psychological Assessments
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyExplicationEmotion workCoachingPremiseCoping (psychology)Meaning (existential)Emotion classificationAdaptation (eye)Affective sciencePsychotherapistCognitive psychologySocial psychologyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In an Emotion‐focused approach emotion is seen as foundational in the construction of the self and is a key determinant of self‐organization. As well as having emotion people also live in a constant process of making sense of our emotions. Personal meaning is seen as emerging by the self‐organization and explication of one's own emotional experience and optimal adaptation involves an integration of reason and emotion. In this framework therapists are viewed as Emotion coaches who work to enhance emotion‐focused coping by helping people become aware of, accept and make sense of their emotional experience. Emotion coaching in therapy is based on two phases: Arriving and Leaving. A major premise is that one cannot leave a place until one has arrived at it. Three major empirically‐supported principles of Emotion Awareness, Emotion Regulation and Emotion Transformation that guide emotion coaching are discussed. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.001
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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.552
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.010

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 head0.289
GPT teacher head0.561
Teacher spread0.271 · 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