Bibliographic record
Abstract
Can two intrapsychic worlds connect? This paper explores some examples of how therapists write about their subjective experience, how they glean and make sense of their client's internal world as that world is communicated through therapy. It examines the micro process of psychotherapy, the elusive prompts of innuendo, the subtle hints of evidence often missed. The first section Listening Outside (to Other) attempts to describe the intricate clues and cues to which therapists attend during the session: pragmatics, linguistics, slips of the tongue, syntax, paralinguistics, kinesics and the like. The second section Listening Inside (with/to self) focuses on how therapists attend to and process incoming information: reflexivity (awareness of self in action), memory, emotional sensations/reactions, physiological sensations/ reactions and fantasy (regular, symbolic and uncanny). Both sections examine the literature focused on clinical experience, as therapists pay attention to the signs of meaning within the therapeutic process. It is concluded that unconscious communication is inherent in conscious communication; its meaning often going unnoticed because of its seeming ordinariness and therapist's elsewhere directed energies. Beyond this, it is concluded that communication is a two way street and attending our clients' reactions to us may lead to a greater understanding and legitimization of all aspects of knowing.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.009 |
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".