Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychotherapy is often described as the art and science of endeavouring to understand the other. The difficulties inherent in understanding have contributed to psychotherapy being described as “the impossible profession” (Malcolm, 1980). In this article I explore the difficulties of understanding in the psychotherapy relationship, drawing on the hermeneutic phenomenological thinking of Hans-Georg Gadamer, Martin Heidegger, and Maurice Merleau-Ponty in particular, as well as the thinking of psychotherapy writers. I note the relationship between the spoken word and silence, whereby words emerge from silence and contemplation. Further, that understanding is enhanced by being willing to place oneself continually in the position of apprentice learner, by remaining open and able to tolerate uncertainty and not knowing and, to closely attend to one’s own and to the other’s emotional states as they manifest in the work. In describing a clinical case from my practice, I illustrate the complexity and difficulties of doing any or all of these.
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 | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.071 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".