Transference interventions and the process between therapist and patient.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interpreting the transference has been considered a core ingredient in psychodynamic psychotherapy. The effects of analyzing the transference are probably dependent on certain characteristics of the interventions themselves and the context in which transference interventions are given. The present study describes the development and use of a therapy process rating scale (Transference Work Scale; TWS) constructed to identify, categorize, and explore work with the transference. TWS has subscales that rate timing, content, and valence of the transference interventions, as well as response from the patient. Transcribed segments (10 min) from 51 different patients were scored with TWS by 2 independent raters. The interrater agreement on the TWS items was good to excellent. Clinical examples of transference work were also rated using the Structural Analysis of Social Behavior (SASB). TWS and SASB supplement each other. TWS might be a potentially useful tool to explore the interaction of timing, category, and valence of transference work in predicting in-session patient response as well as treatment outcome.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it