MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157571227 · doi:10.1177/0886260506290425

Repetition or Reparation?

2006· article· en· W2157571227 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Drapeau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interpersonal Violence · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepetition (rhetorical device)Poison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsPsychologySuicide preventionInjury preventionOccupational safety and healthMedical emergencyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This exploratory study examined the relationship patterns of child abusers in treatment by comparing interactions involving the therapist with those involving a parent. Twenty participants were included in the study. The participants' relationship patterns were assessed using the core conflictual relationship theme (CCRT) method. Core schemas were found in interactions involving the therapist and a parent. The two CCRTs found in interactions with parents were often motivated by a desire for closeness or intimacy, to which the parent reacted with rejection or domination. The participants then felt disappointed, depressed, and unreceptive. In relationship episodes involving the therapist, a similar desire for closeness was answered with help and cooperation from the therapist, hence leading the participants to feel self-controlled and self-confident. Furthermore, the therapist's criticism and opposition was often experienced as an indication of care and acceptance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.338 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Interpersonal ViolenceSame topicPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207