La vigencia del psicoanálisis entre los psiquiatras.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main facts that emerge from the results of our survey in Switzerland are the coexistence of therapeutic practices rooted in different references, a clear tendency towards the practice of combined therapies and a significant diversification of activities and work frameworks. It should also be pointed out that psychiatrists with a biological orientation occupy university posts, as well as institutional in general, with more responsibility, while the psychoanalyst psychiatrists occupy a particular position supported on the interface , between the public and private activity. This situation turns them into guarantors of the principles of psychoanalysis and in this way they contribute to the renovation of future generations of psychoanalytical orientated psychiatrists. On comparing the different training programs, Mombour (1984), observed that the psychoanalysts have exercised a predominant influence on the training of psychiatrists and psychotherapists in the United States, Canada, Norway and Switzerland. With regards to the latter, the double specialisation in psychiatry and psychotherapy has without any doubt contributed to the pre-eminence of the psychotherapy, especially of the psychoanalytic inspiration, right up to the present.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".