MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389567871 · doi:10.1080/00377317.2023.2292995

Features of Pathogenic Beliefs in the Context of Childhood Maltreatment: Implications for Therapeutic Empathy

2023· article· en· W4389567871 on OpenAlexaff
Jay Reid, David Kealy

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Clinical Social Work Transforming Practice Education and Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpathyPersonal distressPerspective (graphical)Context (archaeology)PsychologyDistressTherapeutic relationshipPsychotherapistFunction (biology)Perspective-takingSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One reason why patients may seek therapy is to address constricting beliefs about themselves, others and the world that diminish the quality of their lives. These pathogenic beliefs interfere with the pursuit of personal goals and are often the source of considerable distress. In this paper, we discuss the perspective from Control-Mastery Theory that such beliefs were once adaptive in the context of earlier traumatic relational experience, and are often held in place by loyalties and attachment ties to important figures. Therapists can facilitate patients’ efforts to disconfirm these beliefs by empathically understanding the form and function of the patient’s pathogenic beliefs historically and in the present. Such understanding is termed “person empathy” and is found to contribute to positive therapeutic outcomes. With the aim of helping to facilitate therapists’ empathy regarding patients’ pathogenic beliefs, we describe in this paper some of the original functions and subsequent consequences of such beliefs in patients’ lives.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.012
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.299
GPT teacher head0.610
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Clinical Social Work Transforming Practice Education and ResearchSame topicPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207