MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162850143 · doi:10.1080/01612840600599986

TALKING THEORY, TALKING THERAPY: EMMY GUT AND JOHN BOWLBY

2006· article· en· W2162850143 on OpenAlexaff
Lynda Ross

Bibliographic record

VenueIssues in Mental Health Nursing · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGriefAttachment theoryAlliancePsychoanalysisPsychologyPower (physics)PsychotherapistDepression (economics)Social psychologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.835
Threshold uncertainty score0.798

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.393 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIssues in Mental Health NursingSame topicPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207