When the Goals of Therapists and Patients Clash
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article first reports the main results and conclusions from a study on 24 pedophile sex abusers in treatment in a Canadian specialized institution. The aims of this study were to better understand what motivates abusers to enter treatment as well as how they experience the treatment on a daily basis and consider it to be helpful. In investigating the dynamics of the treatment program, it appeared that the patients gave much care to the interpersonal aspects of the treatment, particularly with the therapists. These results are discussed using psychodynamic theories. Finally, the results are also discussed in the light of recent empirical findings in psychotherapy process research. It is suggested that the abuser is not a passive recipient of the therapist's technique but rather is proactive, having very often a different therapy agenda then the therapist.
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 | 0.023 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".