Parsing the within- and between-therapist positive regard–outcome association in cognitive–behavioral therapy for generalized anxiety disorder.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
= 52) to responsively address patient resistance (Westra et al., 2016). Ten therapists treated patients in CBT only, and nine distinct therapists treated patients in MI-CBT only. Patients rated therapist-offered positive regard repeatedly across 15 sessions and their worry and general distress outcomes at baseline and posttreatment. Multilevel structural equation modeling revealed a significant association between patients' experience of higher early treatment positive regard and lower posttreatment worry and general distress at the within-therapist level. There was no between-therapist association for either outcome. Additionally, neither between-therapist positive regard nor treatment condition moderated the within-therapist effect of positive regard on either outcome. Results underscore the value of therapists working to foster their patients' felt regard irrespective of the treatment they use or the general ability they have in cultivating this relational experience. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it