Response to the commentaries by Lee, Harkness, and Orford
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We would like to begin by thanking the reviewers, editors, and authors of the commentaries, for their enthusiasm for this topic and their support for our agenda to re-open the debate about the codependency (CD) concept. Our primary goal is to initiate sufficient critical discussion for service providers to be more cautious about using the CD tenets while at the same time reflecting on its origins, strengths, and limitations. While we recognize that the concept has had some utility for a large number of people around the globe, we are concerned about the societal messages that the concept conveys, such as women being responsible for others’ addictive behaviour, and the devaluing of caregiver roles. Our motivation in the original opinion paper came from the experience of witnessing a service provider’s first words to concerned significant others (CSOs) of problem gamblers be ‘‘What is your problem?’’ Orford’s indication that this example is very widespread confirms for us the importance of initiating this debate. We thank Lee for providing the family theory perspective. We are both too young to have been directly involved with, or knowledgeable about, the emergence of the CD concept. So our statement that the conceptualization of CD was influenced by family systems theory was solely based on what we found in the literature (e.g., Krestan & Bepko, 1992; Miller, 1994). We welcome Lee’s clarifications pertaining to family systems therapists like White, Haley, and Satir, and their call to ‘‘raise sensitivity to how language is used’’, and her clarifications pertaining to the fact that ‘‘in the second wave of family therapy, the therapist is seen as a co-constructor rather than an expert in the therapeutic process.’’ These points from Lee contribute further to our argument that the CD concept has failed to evolve in a way that is aligned with the direction of other supportive interventions. As Lee indicates, ‘‘the negative assignment of blame and neediness to the partners in ‘codependency’ is a bastardization of family therapy’s way of conceptualization and problem formulation.’’ Neither of us isa family therapist, hence ourindividualistic bias.We agree that the CD literature focuses too much on the individual, and we support Lee’s argument for the
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 | 0.027 | 0.201 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.038 | 0.059 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.010 |
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".