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 “therapeutic triangle” 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 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 | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".