Psicoterapia psicodinâmica breve: estratégia terapêutica e mudança no padrão de relacionamento conflituoso
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Examinaram-se possíveis relações entre mudanças no padrão de relacionamento conflituoso de paciente, de 48 anos, submetida a psicoterapia breve psicodinâmica, e a estratégia terapêutica adotada pela terapeuta. Foi também avaliada a "magnitude" da mudança em sintomas psicopatológicos ao final do processo e entrevistas de acompanhamento (3 e 6 meses), com instrumentos de autorrelato: Inventário Beck de Depressão (BDI), Escala de Alexitimia de Toronto (TAS), Escala de Avaliação de Sintomas-40 (EAS-40), Escala Fatorial de Ajustamento Emocional/ Neuroticismo (EFN). A avaliação do padrão relacional baseou-se no Tema Central de Relacionamento Conflituoso - CCRT e a estratégia terapêutica, no grau de "expressividade vs. apoio" das intervenções. Os resultados mostraram melhoras clinicamente significantes nos sintomas e mudança parcial do padrão central de relacionamento. As intervenções terapêuticas foram mais expressivas no início e mais suportivas à medida que mudanças positivas eram observadas. É necessária cautela na generalização dos resultados. A abordagem metodológica permite comparar diferentes indivíduos.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".