Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of a verbal or written contract has been employed in many different modalities of treatment as a means of establishing the expectations and parameters of treatment. Traditionally, the contract is seen as serving a somewhat utilitarian purpose: setting up the practical conditions of treatment and providing a containing frame for the patient. Contracts, however, can extend to establishing agreed-upon goals of treatment, anticipating obstacles that may arise in the treatment and clarifying how they will be dealt with should they arise, and clearly defining the roles of the patient and therapist in a way that aids the exploratory process once the treatment has begun. Importantly, the mutually agreed-upon contract serves as a useful roadmap to keep the treatment focused and on track. In this article we will emphasize how the treatment contract can facilitate in-depth understanding of the patient's internal world, particularly when challenges to the contract are enacted by the patient. We will begin by briefly summarizing the functions of the contract and then focus on the key role of the treatment contract in furthering the exploratory process of the patient's dynamics as expressed in the transference/countertransference matrix.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".