Emerging Practice in Focusing-Oriented Psychotherapy: Innovative Theory and Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acknowledgements. Foreword. Mary Hendricks Gendlin, Co-Executive Director, The Focusing Institute, New York, USA. Preface. Greg Madison, City University, London, UK, Psychotherapy and Psychology Senior Lecturer, International. Introduction. Greg Madison. Section 1: FOT as a Response to Trauma. 1. Trauma, Myths, Focusing. Emmanuil Vantarakis, Hellenic Focusing Center, Athens, Greece. 2. Focusing and Trauma: A Psychotherapist Explores her own Childhood Trauma. Mary K. Armstrong, MSW, The Centre For Focusing in Toronto, Canada. 3. Aboriginal Focusing-Oriented Therapy. Shirley Turcotte, The Justice Institute of British Columbia, Canada and Jeffrey J. Schiffer, Columbia University, New York, USA. Section 2. Therapeutic Innovations from the 'Whole Body'. 4. A Wholebody Focusing-Oriented Approach to Therapeutic Presence: Envisioning new Possibilities for the Therapist/Client Relationship. Karen Whalen and Kevin McEvenue, both at The Focusing Institute, New York, USA. 5. Dwelling in the Process of Embodied Awareness: Letting Fresh Life Come Through Wholebody Focusing Therapy. Astrid Schillings, Focusing Institut Koln (FINK), Cologne, Germany. 6. Transformational Focusing: Theatre of the Living Body as Vehicle of Personal/Communal Healing. Doralee Grindler Katonah, Sofia University, California, USA and Glenn Fleisch, California Institute of Integral Studies (CIIS), California JKF University, California, USA. Section 3: Focusing in Asian contexts. 7. Focusing and Naikan, a uniquely Japanese way of Therapy: Innovations on Gendlin's Thought and Practice from the East. Kenichi Itoh, Gakushuin University, Tokyo, Japan, and Mako Hikasa, Taisho University, Tokyo, Japan. 8. Focusing-Oriented Psychotherapy in Korea: Cultural Background, Research Findings and Practice Status. Eunsun Joo, Duksung Women's University, Seoul, South Korea. Section 4: Applications of Focusing Practice to Specific Issues and Populations. 9. Existential Wellbeing Counselling. Mia Leijssen, University of Leuven, Belgium. 10. The Body Knows the Way: Working with Clients Facing Illness and Dying. Joan Klagsbrun, Lesley University, Massachusetts, USA. 11. Living the Dream: The Evolution of Focusing Oriented Dream Work. Leslie Ellis, Inward Bound Counselling and Training, Vancouver, Canada. 12. Understanding and Treating Addiction with the Felt Sense Experience Model. Jan Winhall, Focusing Centre On Borden Street, Toronto, Canada. 13. Decision-making Processes in Counselling and Therapy: Some Dead Ends and Ways Out. Susanne Vahrenkamp, Institut fur Gesprachspsychotherapie und personzentrierte Beratung Stuttgart, Germany, and Heinz-Joachim Feuerstein, University of Applied Sciences Kehl, Germany. 14. Focusing with the Consequences of Today's Stressful Living. Isabel Gascon, Occupational Health and Critical Care Specialist, Madrid, Spain. 15. Using Space to Facilitate the Focusing Process. Bernadette Lamboy, Institut de focusing d'Europe Francophone (IFEF), Savoie, France. Section 5: The Person within the Focusing-Oriented Approach. 16. On Becoming a Focusing-Oriented Psychotherapist. Salvador Moreno-Lopez, ITESO University, Mexico. 17. One Therapist's Travel Log. Joan Lavender, Experiential Psychotherapy Project, New York The Institute for Contemporary Psychotherapy, New York, USA. 18. What Lies Beneath? A Client's Perspective of Focusing-Oriented Therapy. Catherine Garnett, Creative Designer and FOT client, UK. Conclusion. Greg Madison.
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 | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".