Review of Transformative relationships: The control-mastery theory of psychotherapy.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reviews the book, Transformative relationships: The control-mastery theory of psychotherapy by George Silberschatz (see record 2005-00928-000). This book is an edited text that thoroughly reviews theory, research, and practice on control-mastery theory, a psychodynamic method developed at the San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute. Overall, this is an impressive research program summarized in this chapter in a very accessible manner. The research program is a good case study of an effort to build an evidence-based treatment close to clinical reality. In addition, the book as a whole is probably the best way to get a summary of all aspects of control-mastery theory as well as a clear and interesting exposition of different aspects of the theory, research, and practice. One important clinical implication of the testing concepts is that the meaning of a therapist's interventions will vary depending on what specific pathogenic beliefs the client is testing. Control-mastery theory is highly case specific; a technique that is helpful to one client may not be appropriate or helpful to another. How effective the therapy is will be determined not by the technique used but by the extent to which the therapist can disconfirm the client's pathogenic beliefs. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved).
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it