MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168782184 · doi:10.1521/jsyt.23.1.38.29398

Conferencing When Therapy is Stuck

2004· article· en· W2168782184 on OpenAlex
Finn Tschudi, Sissel Reichelt

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Systemic Therapies · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThouHarmRetributive justiceIndigenousFocus (optics)Norm (philosophy)PsychologyRestorative justiceSociologyPsychotherapistSocial psychologyEpistemologyCriminologyPolitical scienceLawEconomic JusticePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Retributive approaches to confronting harmful acts like suspected sexual abuse (SSA) have often been the norm in contemporary Western cultures. Alternative restorative approaches partly inspired by indigenous traditions are growing. Conferencing, one of these restorative approaches, is the focus of our conceptual exploration in this paper. We concentrate on cases of how conferencing may be useful when traditional therapeutic approaches fail. In conferencing, it is typically the case that the person responsible for harmful acts acknowledges this. For SSA, however, we argue that the focus should rather be on the victim's suffering and alleviation of her/his harm, especially for the children. Martin Buber's I-It vs. I-Thou conceptual ideas serve as useful constructs for describing how conferencing invites a holistic approach in difficult and highly conflictual situations where conventional retributive and therapeutic approaches may fail.

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.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.747

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.262 · 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