Imparting Self-Care Practices to Therapists: What the Experts Recommend
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Therapist self-care has been lauded as a professional and ethical imperative. However, in education and in supervision, self-care themes are relegated to the realm of optional topics. Our objective was to discover what experts believed were the core hardships that should be brought forward in training courses or supervision, and how trainees or supervisees could be coached to develop self-care strategies in response to these challenges. The 26 experts sampled provided detailed responses to structured and open questions. Results indicate that there is agreement regarding the hazards involved in the profession of psychotherapy, that supervisors and educators address hazards through various mechanisms, but that the quest to incorporate self-care into standard academic programs is not unequivocal.
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 | 0.162 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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".