Bringing Forth Generativities Within Relational Disquiet: An Interview With Karl Tomm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From August 16th to 20th of 2023, the Calgary Family Therapy Centre (CFTC) 50th Anniversary and Conference: Bringing Forth Generativities Within Relational Disquiet was held in Calgary, Canada. The theme of the conference was relational disquiet, a notion introduced at the CFTC to raise awareness that something is experienced as amiss, uneasy, restless, or a sense of unfairness when something is experienced as not right during the therapeutic process. In preparation for the conference, we interviewed Dr. Karl Tomm, founder and senior advisor of the Calgary Family Therapy Centre and a professor of Psychiatry at the Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary. In this article, we present Karl's interview, where he explains the notion of disquiet as a relational response to unwanted differences about hopes or desires emerging in our interactions with one another. Karl shares a clinical example of a possible transition from disquiet to generativity in a family therapy process. We offer some theoretical reflections on how Karl navigates disquieting interactions in family therapy conversations and discuss potential actions that family therapists can take to bring forth generativities from within relational disquiet.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".