Bridging the Practitioner-Scientist Gap in Group Psychotherapy Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bridging the practitioner-scientist gap requires a different clinical research paradigm: participatory research that encourages community agency-academic partnerships. In this context, clinicians help define priorities, determine the type of evidence that will have an impact on their practice (affecting the methods that are used to produce the evidence), and develop strategies for translating, implementing, and disseminating their findings into evidence-based practice. Within this paradigm, different roles are assumed by the partners, and sometimes these roles are blended. This paper will consider the perspectives of people who assume these different roles (clinician, researcher, and clinician-researcher) with group psychotherapy as the specific focus. Finally, the establishment of a practice-research network will be discussed as a potentially promising way to better engage group therapists in research.
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 | 0.510 | 0.477 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.129 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.046 | 0.069 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.072 |
| Research integrity | 0.039 | 0.036 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".