Quebec hypnotherapists' social representations of hypnosis and power
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypnosis appears as a practice that features practitioners who deliberately display their power and the power of their technique. During a therapeutic interaction, the actors involved will mobilize representations and knowledge related to their membership groups. The aim of this research was to highlight the hypnotherapist’s social representations of hypnosis and power. A qualitative research was carried out based on semi-structured interviews with hypnotherapist (n = 21) in private practice in Quebec (Canada). According to our data, we observed and interpreted hypnosis as a staging, where power games take place between the practitioner and client. A common hypnotic dialectic is articulated including words, representations and a narrative discourse of the hypnotic experience, definition and categorization of the hypnotic phenomenon. Also the results revealed three conceptions of power: a) power-resource; b) power-substance; and c) egalitarian power. Legitimacy is a prerequisite for the exercise of power by individuals and appeared as a central element of the research study on power. The search for legitimacy is carried out through strategies, games of power, that take place in the interaction at several levels of interaction. Legitimacy appears not as an objective fact, but rather as a feeling. In fact, not feeling legitimate fits into the intersubjective space and could be thought of in terms of an absence of recognition. The discourses of practitioners have proved relevant in the development of themes and have allowed for an original interpretation of hypnosis and power relations. This study can serve as a starting point for expanding and animating discussions on power, hypnosis, and on psychotherapeutic practices in general.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".