Reading Balint group work through Lacan’s theory of the four discourses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Balint groups, (para)medical professionals explore difficult interactions with patients by means of case presentations and discussions. As the process of Balint group work is not well understood, this article investigates Balint group meetings by making use of Lacan's theory of the four discourses. Five Balint group case presentations and their subsequent group discussion were studied, resulting in the observation of five crucial aspects of Balint group work. First, Balint group participants brought puzzlement to the group, which is indicative of the structural impossibility Lacan situates at the basis of all discourse (1). As for the group discussion, we emphasize 'hysterization' as a crucial process in Balint group work (2), the supporting role of the discourse of the analyst (3) and the centrality of discourse interactions (4). Finally, the potential transformation of the initial puzzlement is discussed (5). We conclude by putting forth the uniqueness of Balint group work as well as the potential usefulness of our analysis as a framework for Balint group leaders and professionals in charge of continuing medical education.
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 | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.071 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".