What Should We Mean by Empirical Validation in Hypnotherapy: <i>Evidence-Based Practice in Clinical Hypnosis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper briefly surveys the trend of and controversy surrounding empirical validation in psychotherapy. Empirical validation of hypnotherapy has paralleled the practice of validation in psychotherapy and the professionalization of clinical psychology, in general. This evolution in determining what counts as evidence for bona fide clinical practice has gone from theory-driven clinical approaches in the 1960s and 1970s through critical attempts at categorization of empirically supported therapies in the 1990s on to the concept of evidence-based practice in 2006. Implications of this progression in professional psychology are discussed in the light of hypnosis's current quest for validation and empirical accreditation.
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 | 0.111 | 0.216 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".