MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7126167437 · doi:10.15640/jpbs.v12p5

Using Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) and Compassion-Focused Therapy (CFT) to Support Persons Experiencing Intimate Partner Violence

2024· article· W7126167437 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lucretzia Appavoo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychology and Behavioral Science · 2024
Typearticle
Language
FieldPsychology
TopicMindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEye movement desensitization and reprocessingShameMental healthDomestic violenceQuality of life (healthcare)Desensitization (medicine)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A high prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) amongst individuals in Canada, a variety of mental health consequences, and lower quality of life requires a need for effective treatments. This research aims to explore how EMDR and compassion-focused therapy (CFT) together can support and treat individuals who have experienced IPV. A literature review is conducted to examine current and past literature examining the effectiveness of EMDR and CFT for individuals who have experienced IPV. Findings from the literature review show that EMDR is helpful in treating PTSD symptoms and that CFT is helpful in treating components of PTSD and shame in those who have suffered from IPV. A framework is proposed that integrates both compassion- focused and EMDR principles into a single model aimed at treating IPV by targeting PTSD symptoms through EMDR and utilizing a compassion-focused lens and techniques to target shame and guilt. By targeting these two areas, EMDR along with CFT could help in reducing mental health issues after IPV and may increase quality of life.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychology and Behavioral ScienceSame topicMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsFrench-language works237,207