Review of Transformative relationships: The control-mastery theory of psychotherapy.
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.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.007 |
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".