MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105204646 · doi:10.1177/070674370404900401

Psychotherapy Education: Innovation and Evolution

2004· editorial· en· W2105204646 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Daniel H Greben, Zindel V. Segal

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2004
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This set of articles on psychotherapy training looks forward along 3 lines. The intent is to illuminate a selection of key issues facing psychotherapy educators in Canada at the present juncture, examining each with sufficient depth to provide a rational basis for recommendations on future directions. The review has been composed to address psychotherapeutic educational content, the form in which such education is delivered, and the overarching theoretical framework within which specific training takes place. Taken together, these papers consider psychotherapy education increasingly informed by process and outcome research literature, reflecting an integrative perspective, and delivered in innovative ways that are attentive to current knowledge about best educational practices. The authors have considered education at both postgraduate and continuing educational levels of training. A recent review of postgraduate psychiatric training in Canada emphasized several themes (1–3). Some thematic overlap is apparent with the articles comprising the current review: they underscore the importance of evidence-based training and critical appraisal of the evolving scientific literature, evaluation of trainee competence, a broad skill set with a capacity for integrative case formulation, and facilitation of continued learning throughout psychiatrists’ careers.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.308 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207