Bibliographic record
Abstract
Is the current marketing of psychotherapy going to be its end ? The growing confusion induced by the commercialization of psychotherapy does not seem to worry the psychotherapists who think they profit from it as much as does the public. This paper argues that it is high time for psychotherapists to adopt a consumer perspective if they are to fully grasp the extent of the problem engendered by the commercialization of contemporary psychotherapy. The rules of the therapeutic relationship are not aimed only at serving the patient's objectives but are subject to other pressures such as institutional contexts, ideological and sociopolitical position of the therapists. The author analyses the constraints governing the practice of psychotherapy and points to various ways in which psychotherapists contribute to the decay of psychotherapy. On this critical basis, five areas are identified wherein concerted action by psychotherapists may help pull psychotherapy out of its present crisis.
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".