Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To review specificities of and difficulties in psychodynamic psychotherapy training for psychiatry residents. The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada requires a minimum of 32 weeks of the PGY2-PGY5 psychotherapy experience. Most of Canadian universities organize training in supportive psychotherapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy and long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy for psychiatry residents. At the beginning of the PGY3 year, residents will begin supervised practice in psychodynamic psychotherapy for a minimum of one year. Residents may perceive psychodynamic psychotherapy as too complicated and they may require a more directive approach in supervision and guidance regarding psychotherapy technique and psychotherapy process. This is understandable because they lack personal/didactic analysis. Supervisor trained in psychoanalysis needs to take into account differences in supervision as a part of psychoanalytic training and psychiatry resident supervision in psychodynamic psychotherapy. Unlike the psychoanalytic training organized by psychoanalytic institutes, training in psychotherapy as a part of residency training is much less defined in terms of standards and expectations from both residents and supervisors. The profile of psychodynamic psychotherapists who serve as supervisors for residents may vary significantly with regards to their training, experience and personal style in supervision. Criteria for assessment of resident performance and his/her progress in training are not well established. Residency training committees and psychotherapy training committees should work on developing training standards of psychotherapy supervisions for residents. In conclusion, psychodynamic psychotherapy supervision for psychiatry residents is a specific and modified type of psychotherapy supervision. There is a need for standardization of the long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy supervision.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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".