The history and development of Body Psychotherapy: European collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article, part of a series on the history of Body Psychotherapy (Young, 2006 Young, C. 2006. One hundred and fifty years on: The history, significance and scope of Body Psychotherapy today. Body, Movement and Dance in Psychotherapy, 1(1): 17–28. [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar], 2008 Young, C. 2008. The history and development of Body Psychotherapy: The American legacy of Wilhelm Reich. Body, Movement and Dance in Psychotherapy, 3(1): 5–18. [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar], 2010 Young, C. 2010. The history and development of Body Psychotherapy: European Diversity. Body, Movement and Dance in Psychotherapy, 5(1): 5–20. [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]), covers the extraordinary collaboration, co-operation and integration that happened between the diverse schools and countries to further the development of Body Psychotherapy in Europe, which started in the mid-1990s. This collaboration was primarily political, but has since extended much further. In this process, various other offshoots are becoming apparent, as the mainstream or field of Body Psychotherapy is being generated. In this complex process of development, the necessary ‘structures’ for European Body Psychotherapy are also described.
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 | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".