PSYCHOTHERAPY AS THE INTERPRETATION OF BEING: HERMENEUTIC PERSPECTIVES ON PSYCHOTHERAPY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychotherapy recently has been interpreted by hermeneutically-inspired writers and scholars in ways that emphasize the historical, sociocultural, moral, and political embeddedness of psychotherapeutic practice. Following a brief introduction to the core ideas of twentieth-century Continental hermeneuts, more recent work is discussed that has applied these ideas directly to the interpretation of psychotherapy. The authors' own reading of these hermeneutic writings indicates that psychotherapy can be understood as a practical, moral, and interpretive attempt to assist clients by extending their understanding of their lives and concerns in a specific way. The enhanced understanding that is sought takes the form of clarifying the particular existence of clients in ways that relate to human existence in general. In the final section of the article, the authors' understanding of psychotherapy as the interpretation of being is discussed, and implications for psychotherapy are drawn.
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 | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.119 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".