Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emmy Gut was a psychotherapist who developed, in her later years, a unique theory distinguishing between "productive" and "unproductive" depression. Dr. John Bowlby was a leading psychoanalyst famous for his work on attachment theory. After the death of her second husband, Emmy contacted John because his work on mourning and grief spoke to her own depressed state. Although her views of the world and of her relationship with John were clearly coloured by bouts of depression, she was profoundly influenced by her personal, therapeutic, and intellectual involvement with him. Evidence of his influence is seen in the volumes of correspondence flowing between them beginning in 1971 and continuing until John's death in 1990. During that time, Emmy wrote more than 100-some very lengthy-letters to John. Much of her correspondence was devoted to discussions about their often ambiguous and conflicted therapeutic relationship. Through an analysis of attachment theory and the nature of the client-therapist alliance, this paper offers insights into the effects that imbalances in power, expectations, and shifting needs can play in the recovery process.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".