MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reflections on Gestalt Conferences, with a Focus on the Association for the Advancement of Gestalt Therapy Conference (Toronto, 2018)

2019· article· en· W3008717858 on OpenAlex
Joseph L. Melnick, Commentary by Erving Polster

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueGestalt Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Therapy and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGestalt psychologyAssociation (psychology)Gestalt therapyTheme (computing)Interpersonal communicationFocus (optics)PsychologyFeature (linguistics)LinguisticsPsychotherapistSocial psychologyComputer sciencePerceptionPhilosophyNeuroscienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Dialogue and interpersonal connections have proved essential for the development of the Gestalt approach. Conferences, large and small, have served as reliable venues for these interactions to occur. The piece begins with a discussion of the structure, development, and evolution of Gestalt conferences. It goes on to highlight the recent Association for the Advancement of Gestalt Conference convened in Toronto in 2018, in which the topic of microaggression emerged and proved a compelling theme. Particular attention is paid to small conferences, which feature a single topic.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.298 · 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