Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bringforthist therapy extends the systemic practices of Interventive Interviewing and applies the relational focus of the IPscope. We elaborate upon these frameworks, highlighting their sensitivity to locally shaped needs of family members through the notions of relational preferences and relational pain. Relational preferences refer to family members' normative expectations about their relationships (relationship "shoulds"), while relational pain refers to family members' experiences of unfulfilled hopes vis-à-vis their culturally situated relational preferences (relationship "can'ts"). We distinguish seven variations of unrealized preferences, which are aggravated by differing pathologizing patterns of interpersonal interaction. We label these as seven "M's" of relational pain: Misjudging, Misaligning, Misrecognizing, Misappropriating, Mistreating, Mistrusting, and Misgrieving. We discuss each of these in relation to seven corresponding "R's" that could bring forth relational healing, namely Reappraising, Realigning, Recognizing, Reappropriating, Revealing, Reconciling, and Re-membering. In addition, we outline prototypical interaction patterns to illustrate how these different forms of pain might be addressed.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".