L'Importance de la Relation dans le Changement Thérapeutique: Un Problème en Quête d'une Response Empirique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The lack of empirical support concerning the efficacy of the counsellor as a teacher of interpersonal skills is emphasized. Comparisons of this role of teacher with that of therapist, while complexifying the issue, also points to the need of questionning the necessity per se of the therapeutic relationship so as to better assess its relative importance. Analysis of conditions generally thought to be conducive to therapeutic change leads to the proposal that empirical research should focus on the bodily components of the experiencing process; the author and his students are currently working in this direction by trying to vary the degree of immediacy of the therapist's presence as independent variable, and by comparing, through physiological and perceptual indices, the relative influence of verbal and nonverbal contact.
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 | 0.188 | 0.350 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".