Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction HIV infection presents a series of challenges to the psychotherapist, testing his or her ability to respond compassionately and sensitively. The psychiatrist will often benefit from a thorough working knowledge of the issues faced by people infected with HIV. In most ways, people living with HIV do not differ significantly from other psychotherapy patients. The main differences are: the ongoing possibility of crisis uncertainty about the future The complex nature of HIV disease expression, antiretroviral treatments and associated side-effects the strong countertransference reactions these patients may evoke. Therapists should try to adapt the psychotherapy method they are most comfortable with to the special needs of the person living with HIV. Although most forms of psychotherapy are likely to be helpful for people living with HIV, a psychiatrist's formulation of the case and knowledge of differential therapeutics should inform the method choice. Due to its potentially fatal outcome, HIV disease has the effect of imposing time pressure on patients, which may serve as a catalyst for work in therapy and make brief models ideally suited to this group of patients. They may feel more comfortable doing one or more successive “pieces of work” in therapy as they progress through different stages of the illness and their needs change. On the other hand, with the advent of HAART, people living with HIV now have indeterminate life expectancies and may benefit from the insight and knowledge gained from open-ended psychotherapy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.253 | 0.131 |
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".