Bibliographic record
Abstract
In psychotherapy practice, a complex relationship exists between clients, culture and values. By drawing on psychology, philosophy and anthropology, we developed an interdisciplinary ethical framework for cultural psychotherapy. The framework, which reflects a hermeneutic approach, avoids the excesses of both an ‘objective’ view of ethics (and its relation to selfhood) and the social constructionist view, which tends towards relativism. To take this middle path, therapists need to do more than familiarize themselves with the professional codes of ethics set out for this practice. These ethical codes and the rules that constitute them are important, but they should not replace the difficult work of ethical thinking and judgment. These processes require psychotherapists to engage in the (often) difficult task of gaining a better understanding of a client’s culture or context, including their conceptions of good, and critiquing or correcting instances where the therapists’ own moral or cultural prejudices distort or compromise the therapist-client relationship. We also present a case example in which we illustrate the strength and relevance of our approach.
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 | 0.029 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.068 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.038 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".