Le rôle du thérapeute familial dans la construction du système thérapeutique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article the author draws from his clinical experience those elements which permit him to illustrate how the family therapist constructs a therapeutic system. To this end he focuses on three particular aspects : 1) first he describes what confronts the therapist at the outset. He has to deal with an open or closed system (the family). To assess its degree of openness, he observes its survival rules, behavioural schémas and its homeostatic functioning. He explains how to begin the first interview in the light of the work of Shirley Luthman. He emphasizes the importance of circular logic as a basis for exploring the family problem. 3) He demonstrates the importance of redefining the problem, the therapeutic relation, and the context which may be judicial, or one of madness, protection or expectation. He concludes by insisting on the necessity for the therapist to be concerned essentially with process : how things happen between people.
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 | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.076 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".