MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1825859580

Metaphor-Work in the Treatment of Complex Psychic Trauma

2013· article· en· W1825859580 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Arthur Leonoff

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of psychoanalysis · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetaphorPsychicNarrativeConcretenessPsychologyCognitionInterpretation (philosophy)Perspective (graphical)PsychotherapistProcess (computing)Cognitive psychologyEpistemologySocial psychologyMedicineComputer sciencePhilosophyArtPsychiatryLiterature
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients who have suffered multiple psychic traumas during childhood often form an important part of all analysts’ practices. These patients enter treatment lacking the cognitive skills to get better, and their analyses are necessarily long-term, longer than typical. Early severe psychic trauma arrests the capacity for thinking in the processing sense described by Bion. The result is a kind of concreteness, an absence of metaphor, in which the analyst’s capacity for containment helps the patient to make sense of experience. Much as the mother works with the primal projections of the infant, the analyst acts as intermediary between the patient and a terrifying world of reactivated trauma. With time and process, however, the capacity for thinking emerges, led by a new capacity for metaphor. This achievement brings into focus the value of metaphor and metaphor-work to conceptualize experience and point to what is new and not yet apprehended. Clinical examples are provided to illustrate the processes described. By being alert to the presence of metaphor, even when rudimentary in form, a collaborative, co-creative process becomes possible between patient and analyst in which non-symbolized agony can be transformed into meaningful narrative.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian journal of psychoanalysisSame topicPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207