Existe-t-il une approche d’inspiration psychanalytique spécifiquement adaptée aux troubles anxieux ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychoanalytic treatments have been relegated to a secondary status in the current recommendations concerning the treatment of anxiety disorders. This is due to the lack of controlled studies pertaining to these psychotherapies, as well as to the late adaptation of psychoanalysis to the contemporary trends of psychopathology and psychotherapy focusing on symptoms. The recent development of a manualized psychotherapy for the treatment of panic disorder, the Panic-Focused Psychodynamic Psychotherapy (PFPP), is a good example of such an adaptation (Milrod et al., 1997). PFPP appears to be effective (Milrod, 2001). This type of psychotherapy is probably neither more nor less effective than other forms of psychotherapy if one considers the results of empirical research on the comparative effectiveness of psychotherapies. The question formulated by the title of this paper is perhaps less central as is that of the nature of the active factors of the psychotherapeutic process.
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 | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".