Psychoanalytic Practice in the Early Postgraduate Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a pilot investigation for a longitudinal study of psychoanalytic careers, a survey was conducted of analysts who graduated during the last fifteen years from the Columbia University Center for Psychoanalytic Training and Research. Graduates were asked to describe both their analytic practice and their interest in pursuing appointment as training and supervising analysts. The 23-item questionnaire was completed by 67 of 102 potential respondents (66%). The study identified two subgroups of graduates: those who were not certified and were not training analysts (GAs), 78% of the sample, and certified and training analysts (CAs, TAs), 22% of the sample. GAs started a mean of 1.4 new analytic cases since graduation, as compared to CAs and TAs, who started a mean of 5.4 and 8.3 new cases, respectively. CAs and TAs also saw more twice-weekly therapy cases than did GAs. Once-weekly therapy was the most commonly practiced treatment for all subgroups. Interest in becoming a TA was highest during the first five postgraduate years and was lower among non-TAs five to fifteen years after graduation. Only one of the CA respondents met current APsaA immersion criteria for training analyst appointment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".