Collaborative Documentation: Therapist Experiences in Jointly Writing Progress Notes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Systemic therapy is predicated on a collaborative relationship between therapist and client. This joint pursuit of client goals occurs in the therapy room but may dissolve once the therapist begins filling out any necessary paperwork (e.g., progress notes, biopsychosocial evaluations, or assessments). Collaborative documentation is one means of bringing forth the client's voice during the session and for documentation. Most therapists write progress notes on their own once the session has ended; however, this leads to a privileging of the therapist's voice in the document rather than the client's voice. This article explores collaborative documentation and provides the voices of doctoral student-therapists as they experienced their initial forays into this process. We provide an explanation of how we believe collaborative documentation helped privilege the client's voice, decreased the power imbalance between therapist and client, and provided ideas as to the implementation and use of joint progress note development.
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 | 0.033 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".