‘Self as instrument’ – Safe and effective use of self in music psychotherapy: Canadian music therapists’ perceptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article introduces the results of a pilot survey conducted with accredited Canadian music therapists investigating their perceptions of personal psychotherapy and the concept of Safe and Effective Use of Self (SEUS) in the music therapy relationship. An emailed survey questionnaire covered both closed and open-ended questions on SEUS-related topics. The open-ended questions were analysed using the qualitative data analysis software Nvivo. Simple percentages were calculated to analyse the results of the closed-ended questions. The results suggest that music therapists engaging in psychotherapy seem to work with similar client populations, use similar theoretical approaches and techniques, and hold very similar training to other music therapists. These music therapists appear to have an excellent sense of SEUS, whether or not they practice psychotherapy. Conversely, their training on both SEUS and verbal counselling skills is often seen as inadequate. It is suggested that music therapists who practice psychotherapy have completed their own psychotherapy and have ongoing music psychotherapy supervision. The results can be utilised as a discussion stimulus for the topic of SEUS in music therapy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".