Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various academic programs throughout the world are intensifying demands for psychotherapy training. For example, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada now demands that psychiatry residents get competency based trainining in multiple psychotherapy modalities throughout their training. Faculty complain of limited time and limited teaching resources. Residents complain of a lack of skills based, “hands on” supervision. The purpose of this study was to undertake a needs analysis for a new, competency based psychotherapy curriculum in a Canadian psychiatry residency program. A group of residents were surveyed about their perceived learning needs. An online, anonymous survey was distributed to all of the residents in this training program. The survey results suggested the need for a new psychotherapy curriculum—one that is integrated, interactive and based on the Royal College’s Objectives of Training. Innovative delivery methods, including multimedia and review of actual and simulated patients, were preferred. These results suggest that a blended course might be an ideal way to combine an appropriate balance of didactic content with hands on viewing and discussion of previously recorded, actual patient sessions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".