Bibliographic record
Abstract
À l’aide d’un cas clinique, l’auteur décrit l’expérience phénoménologique de l’ambivalence dans le contexte thérapeutique et discute de son traitement en cinq étapes : (1) reconnaître et légitimer l’ambivalence ; (2) distinguer l’incertitude de la confusion ; (3) accepter l’ambivalence, s’abstenir de la résoudre immédiatement ; (4) analyser avec respect les deux pôles de l’ambivalence ; et (5) reconnaître leur unité fondamentale car les deux pôles constituent généralement les deux faces d’un même désir de bien-être. L’étude de cas montre comment traiter non seulement l’ambivalence du patient, mais aussi celle du thérapeute. Le modèle d’intervention décrit montre son utilité pour comprendre à la fois la dynamique de transfert et la dynamique de contre-transfert de la dyade thérapeutique. L’auteur envisage les précautions nécessaires pour mener à bien le processus analytique ainsi que l’utilité de la neutralité empathique à l’égard des deux pôles de l’ambivalence.
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 | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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; 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".