Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral couple therapy with emotion-focused couple therapy in reducing interpersonal cognitive distortions between referring couples to Isfahan's family cultural centers.The present study was carried out according to practical and semiexperimental with pretest-posttest design with control group.Statistical population were included all couples attending the family cultural center of Isfahan with interpersonal cognitive distortions in 2013 and of those 15 couples were divided using convenience sampling and randomly in two groups, a control group and experimental group.Data was collected by interpersonal cognitive distortions scale (Hamamchi, 2005).Then experimental groups were put in 8 sessions (60 minutes), each under emotion-focused couple therapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy.During this period, the control group did not receive any intervention and post-test was conducted after the end of meetings.Then, they were analyzed using covariance analysis of findings through software SPSS-18.The results of the study confirmed the hypothesis and showed that emotion-focused couple therapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy reduces interpersonal cognitive distortions in couples.Results also showed that even cognitive -behavioral therapy was more effective compared with emotion-focused couple therapy in reducing interpersonal cognitive distortions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.823 | 0.649 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".