Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following a television program concerning the dangers of the lack of control on persons practicing psycho therapies, the author wrote to the program host* questioning certain implicit messages underlying the production. He finds it unfortunate that no psychotherapiste were included in the discussion .group* and that the 4 * accused** in the film had no opportunity to present their opinion* He then points out that some of the elements reproached in the film are also found among professionals i the publicity, the anxiety-provokirig effect of certain methods on observers and the lack of training necessary to be a psychotherapist. Reflecting on the meaning of the tendency towards smcli a dichotomy between "good diploma-holders** and **bad non-diploma-hoiders**>> he puts forward two responses. On the one hand that such a position tends to veil the limite, the risks of abuse9 the uncertainties* the conservatism and the partializing effect of professionalism. On the other hand, more profoundly, that it has a tendency to negate our vulnerability and our suffering as "snbjete">> Thus the program missed the "subject"->> having placed itself on the side of material goods and their protection>> all of which is reassuring but Utopian.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".