Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient-therapist match is a relatively new yet frequently invoked concept within psychoanalysis. Despite Freud's appreciation of the influence of the analyst's past to his or her work within the analytic setting, psychoanalysts have historically held varied opinions about the degree to which the analyst's personality and conflicts affect the analytic process. As analysis was reconfigured as a two-person system, attention focused on the fit between patient and analyst. The literature on patient-therapist match is reviewed, and the conclusion reached that this intuitively appealing concept suffers from a lack of rigorous definition and operationalization. Many authors invoke match in ways that imply that it is real, static, external to the domain of analytic inquiry, and unaffected by analytic process. In its present form, the concept of patient-therapist match obstructs rather than facilitates analytic exploration and obscures rather than clarifies what happens between analyst and analysand in psychoanalysis. By suggesting that match exists as a reality outside the domain of transference and countertransference, analysts may overlook the importance of psychoanalytic technique in creating a sense of match. Analysts may attribute stalemated or limited analyses to a bad match, rather than tenaciously exploring the transference-countertransference configurations that remain at the heart of analytic work.
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 | 0.045 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| 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".