Physiciansâ âcompliance with treatmentâ in the context of consultation-liaison psychiatry: The role of âtriangleâ relationships and projective identification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thomas N Hyphantis1, Konstantinos I Arvanitakis21Consultation-Liaison Psychiatric Unit, Department of Psychiatry,Medical School, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece; 2Department of Philosophy and Department of Psychiatry, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, CanadaAbstract: Transference and countertransference issues arising in the context of consultation-liaison (C-L) psychiatry could be more complex than originally assumed since they include reactions evoked within the frame of a unique âtherapeutic triangleâ of the patient, the physician, and the C-L psychiatrist. A clinical vignette illustrates how the projective identification process could mediate the relationships between the members of the therapeutic triangle through the different transferences and countertranferences interwoven in the setting of C-L psychiatry. This, if left unchecked, may result in the disruption of professional relationships and in jeopardizing the treatment of patients.Keywords: consultation-liaison psychiatry, compliance, transference, countertransference, projective identification
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".