Mentalization-Based Interventions in Child Psychiatry and Youth Protection Services I: Objectives, Setting, General Principles and Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many of the children who receive services in child psychiatry or are in the care of Youth Protection Services present with complex, multiple and often severe problems. Classic psychodynamic psychotherapy seems to be of little benefit to them. The majority of these children tend to not use symbolic play as a means of expressing their intrapsychic conflicts or relational difficulties and they do not verbally communicate much with clinicians. They are more likely to display an imaginative poverty that translates into boredom, motor discharge, and an inability to use the material put at their disposal for therapeutic purposes. The systematic and rigorous observations of these children in Quebec revealed that the majority of them present with severe mentalizing difficulties. They often show attitudes and behaviors linked to the prementalizing modes of psychic functioning. This article presents a mentalization-based intervention adapted to these children’s difficulties. The objectives, adaptation of the work setting, and general principles underlying this intervention are discussed. In addition, general intervention strategies are also covered. These interventions are considered as preparatory work whose principal purpose is to enable children to benefit later on from psychodynamic psychotherapy. The authors also recommend specific intervention strategies adapted to children’s predominant mode of psychic functioning. The details of these strategies will be shared in a separate article.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".