Psychotherapy and its Role in Psychiatric Practice: A Position Paper. I. Psychiatry as a Psychobiological Discipline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Economic, political, and ideological landscapes have impacted the practice of psychiatry throughout its evolution as a medical discipline. Despite enormous scientific advances over the course of the past century, many psychiatrists continue to operate with a split Cartesian picture of mind versus brain and entrenched ideological positions ranging from biological "chemical imbalance" to rigidly followed manualized psychotherapy approaches, both of which frequently result in fractured clinical care. With the impact of systemic economic and political pressures in Canada and the United States, the attention to the doctor-patient relationship has taken a back seat to high-volume practices, computerized assessment tools, and the focus on evidence-based treatments for behaviorally defined syndromes in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders that often come at the expense of the patient's experience of his or her illness. We spend much time teaching the next generation of psychiatrists what to prescribe versus how to prescribe; what manualized treatments to administer versus questioning why our patients engage in dysfunctional patterns of thinking, feeling, and relating to others, and what impact these patterns may have on their interaction with us in the here-and-now of the treatment setting. In this paper, we propose an integrative psychobiological model, in which biological interventions carry personal meanings, and relational transactions in the treatment setting are a form of learning that results in lasting physiological changes in the brain. Psychiatry needs to reconnect with its roots as a science of attachment and meaning, in which attention to the objective, subjective, and relational domains of the patient-provider experience is equally foundational for any successful 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.
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 | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".