Therapeutic Use of Self in Occupational Therapy Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter has drawn from two doctoral studies, one undertaken by Nicholls ‘ Putting it into words ’. She used a psychoanalytically informed ethnographic study of the relationship work (i.e., emotional labor) undertaken by occupational therapists in acute care environments. The second study was by Dr Rebecca Van Schyndel, a phenomenological research study, Realizing a Conscious and Receptive Heart , which concentrated on exploring the lived experience of developing, maintaining, and disengaging from therapeutic relationships for community occupational therapists in Ontario, Canada. The study explored the experience of intersubjective relationship dynamics and psychoanalytical concepts, namely countertransference, for occupational therapists. A therapist who imagines that having good intentions toward a client is enough to form a therapeutic relationship or use therapeutic use of self may quickly realize that establishing and maintaining a relationship with another person is a more complex task. There are layers of meanings encoded through the context of care (social constructionism), positionality (intersectionality), and the client’s unconscious emotions, beliefs, etc.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".