La circularité du questionnement et des questions dans l’entrevue circulaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article présente une technique d'intervention très efficace en approche de court terme L'auteure situe d'abord le cadre théorique du modèle d'intervention élaboré par l'Équipe de milan dans lequel l'entrevue circulaire a été instaurée, puis elle rappelle les conditions sous-jacentes à la formulation des questions circulaires, soit la positions méta et la centration sur le processus. Vient ensuite l'explication d'un tableau synthèse reproduit à partir de deux diagrammes conçus par Karl Tomm. On y présente, de façon détaillée, tous les types de questions qui peuvent être formulées dans le cadre d'une entrevue circulaire, les différentes intentions que peut avoir le thérapeute en posant telles questions ainsi que les effets que chaque type de questions suscite chez le système-client et chez le système-intervenant.
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 | 0.033 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".