Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resumen: Este artículo trata de analizar cómo se puede enseñar y aprender el concepto de relación terapéutica siendo éste término, el contenido central de la asignatura Pre-Práctica, materia previa y obligatoria para los estudiantes que deben realizar su práctica de residencia como psicoterapeutas en la carrera de Maestría en Espiritualidad y Psicoterapia de la Universidad Wilfrid Laurier de la provincia de Ontario, Canadá. El concepto de relación terapéutica es abordado desde las perspectivas teóricas del pensamiento de Piaget, Freire y Morin, siendo dicha relación un elemento esencial que permite la implementación del proceso de psicoterapia y de los cambios que el paciente necesita realizar para mejorar su salud mental. A su vez, se analizan los conceptos de transferencia, contratransferencia y alianza terapéutica desde la perspectiva dinámica y cognitiva. Este artículo está sustentado teórica y conceptualmente en los principios de la transdiciplinariedad y del pensamiento complejo.Abstract: This article describes how to teach and how to learn about the nature of the therapeutic relationship. This concept is the main content of the Pre-Practicum course which is a cumpulsory prerequisite for students before they begin their practicum as psychotherapists in the Master in Spirtuality and Psychotherapy degree program of Wilfrid Laurier University in the province of Ontario, Canada. The concept of therapeutic relationship is analyzed from the perspective of Piaget, Freire and Morin. This article is focused on the importance and the needs of reaching a good therapeutic relationship in order to implement the psychotherapy process and the changes that the client needs to achieve to improve his mental health. This work analyzes the concepts of transference, countertransference and therapeutic alliance from dynamic and cognitive perspectives. This article is supported by the principles of transdisciplinarity and complex thinking.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
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".