Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".