MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3170527445 · doi:10.1177/1936724421998275

Sociotherapy in the Time of COVID-19: A Critical Position Paper on the Importance of Sociology

2021· article· en· W3170527445 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sheila L. Cavanagh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Social Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsContemplationPsychicFreudian slipPsychosocialInterpretation (philosophy)PsychotherapistPsychologySociologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Relation (database)EpistemologyPsychoanalysisMedicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper contends that sociotherapy, a sociologically informed approach to therapy, is a viable alternative to the diagnostic model recognized by the College of Registered Psychotherapists in Ontario (CRPO). The Psychotherapy Act (2007) along with the Regulated Health Professions Act (1991) gives the CRPO authorization to regulate the practice of psychotherapy and to control titles affiliated with the act of psychotherapy. I offer a discussion of sociotherapy and socioanalysis as clinical alternatives to the conservative and normalizing approaches endorsed by the College. I situate sociotherapy and socioanalysis in the discipline of sociology and in relation to Freudian psychoanalysis. I offer my own sociotherapeutic practice as an illustration of how the societal and the psychological, the social, and the psychic must be engaged in concert. I underscore the importance of dialogue, as opposed to diagnostics, interpretation as opposed to assessments and psychosocial contemplation as opposed to cognitive-behavioral treatment in clinical practice.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0230.104
Scholarly communication0.0130.014
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0080.012
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.410 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Social ScienceSame topicCommunity Health and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207