MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2757123013 · doi:10.1097/pra.0000000000000256

Bias Toward Psychodynamic Therapy: Framing the Problem and Working Toward a Solution

2017· review· en· W2757123013 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychiatric Practice · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychodynamicsCredibilityFraming (construction)PsychotherapistPsychologyPerspective (graphical)Set (abstract data type)Computer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although psychodynamic therapy (PDT) is an evidence-based intervention for a broad spectrum of psychiatric conditions, there is often notable bias in the way PDT is depicted both in the popular media and in the scientific literature. This has contributed to a negative view of PDT, which hampers both patient access to this treatment and researcher access to funding for further research on PDT. The adverse effects of these distortions and biases are detrimental not only to PDT but also to the overall field of psychotherapy, raising questions about its credibility. Here we summarize current evidence for PDT, describe existing biases, and formulate a set of recommendations to foster a more balanced perspective on PDT.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.463
GPT teacher head0.551
Teacher spread0.088 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it