Bibliographic record
Abstract
The therapeutic work with a suicidal adolescent begins with the therapist's recognition that there are a multitude of causes for suicidal behavior and that the risk of a serious suicide attempt lies in the patient's feeling of desperation about his situation, the feeling that he faces intolerable pain due to shame or embarrassment, degradation, guilt or loss. The patient can not assess whether his view of his situation is realistic or not, and he is unable to conceive of alternative solutions. The therapist must throw the patient a lifeline to give him hope of escaping from his belief that he is trapped in a world of unending pain. That lifeline may be an active intervention in the life of a patient, reality testing of the patient's perceptions that he is trapped, or both. The choice of interventions is based on an exploration of the psychodynamic and psychopathological constellations that have caused the patient to feel so trapped. Patients, in their anguish, will resort to extremes of coercion and manipulation; the therapist must be able to tolerate and work with these behaviors. The therapist must maintain his belief that he can find ways to help the patient, while accepting the possibility that some day he might fail. He can succeed only if he is prepared to fail. Meeks (1984) summed up his article on suicidal adolescents in the following way: Success in the therapy of these youngsters does not depend on brilliant insights as much as on persistence, patience, and a sustained hope for the future. The treatment process may become a demonstrated proof that the therapist can stand to feel the patient's feelings and live the patient's painful existence, without giving up on life or the patient [p. 5].
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".