MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413118428 · doi:10.35680/2372-0247.2027

Holding Space: An Effective Intervention for When Hope Wanes

2025· article· en· W4413118428 on OpenAlexaff
Annette Lane, Rose Schroeder

Bibliographic record

VenuePatient Experience Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Education Studies and Reforms
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpace (punctuation)Intervention (counseling)PsychologyMedicineNursingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Holding space is a person-centered, non-judgmental approach to working with clients. This approach goes beyond listening to client concerns; it entails deep listening and being present, developing trust with clients, and helping them connect goals with values. Within this brief account, the concept of holding space is described. What it is and is not is explained. Examples of holding space are woven throughout in order illustrate this concept. Finally, implications for professionals are provided.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.377
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePatient Experience JournalSame topicDiverse Education Studies and ReformsFrench-language works237,207