MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104643186 · doi:10.7202/1026079ar

Le psychodrame pourquoi faire ? Dramatiser pour dédramatiser ?

2014· article· fr· W2104643186 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Claude Rayna

Bibliographic record

VenueFiligrane Écoutes psychothérapiques · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans cet exposé, l’auteur a voulu montrer tout l’intérêt que représente l’activité psychodramatique pour des patients difficiles. Après un bref rappel de la technique du psychodrame analytique, il va étayer son propos par l’exposé d’une prise en charge qui s’est effectuée sur plusieurs années. Il va montrer en rapportant le déroulement de séquences cliniques, comment à travers la répétition active des expériences traumatiques de l’existence, par le travail interprétatif dans le jeu psychodramatique cela permet de les dé-conflictualiser et de les élaborer. Cette technique analytique favorisant la mise en représentation, est aussi un moyen de créer une aire de jeu adaptée aux difficultés du patient sans pour autant agir un agir contre-transférentiel qui rendrait ininterprétable le transfert.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.017

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFiligrane Écoutes psychothérapiquesSame topicPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology ResearchFrench-language works237,207