Le processus relationnel de groupe : avancées pour un modèle de psychothérapie de groupe en analyse transactionnelle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article présente quelques principes de la psychothérapie relationnelle de groupe. Son développement a été influencé par plusieurs modèles, dont la thérapie par le groupe, la thérapie par l’interprétation, la thérapie en groupe ou encore la thérapie de groupe. On décrira la dialectique entre l’approche par le feedback et l’approche centrée sur la personne en thérapie de groupe, puis on proposera l’intégration de ces modèles. La psychothérapie relationnelle de groupe insiste sur le pouvoir de guérison des relations entre membres du groupe, sur l’importance du questionnement phénoménologique, de l’harmonisation affective, de la validation, du respect, de l’identification et des besoins relationnels de chacun. Entre autres choses, l’animateur doit stimuler un dialogue de plein contact et sensibiliser aux besoins humains ainsi qu’aux relations saines.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Model of relational group psychotherapy in transactional analysis.
The article concerns group psychotherapy theory rather than research itself.
Psychotherapy model of relational group therapy, clinical practice not research methods.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".