Relaciones complejas: relación pedagógica, psicoterapéutica y de supervisión clínica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este artículo de carácter epistemológico se propone analizar la relación pedagógica, la relación psicoterapéutica y la relación de supervisión clínica desde la perspectiva del pensamiento complejo. Para ello, se describe la naturaleza del pensamiento complejo como una respuesta a la concepción reduccionista de la ciencia clásico-positivista. A su vez, se define al ser humano como una entidad compleja de carácter multidimensional al igual que las relaciones que constituye. Finalmente, se explica la multidimensionalidad de las relaciones humanas analizadas, estableciéndose que todas ellas presentan una estructura común integrada por las dimensiones sistémica (se compara sistema simple y sistema complejo), política (se analiza las relaciones de poder), educativa (se describen los procesos de asimilación y acomodación), social (se examina el concepto de alianzas de trabajo), transferencial (se analizan los conceptos de transferencia y contratransferencia), moral (se reflexiona acerca de su construcción histórica y social de la moral) y espiritual y/o religiosa (se analiza el conflicto entre la ciencia y la espiritualidad/o religión).
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 | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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".