Adelphi Society For Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy, the Toronto Society for Contemporary Psychoanalysis, and the
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We wish to address two taboos characteristic of both past and present psychoanalytic practice: (1) the taboo against analysts giving serious consideration to the ways in which psychoanalysis may at times be destructive; and (2) the taboo against having simultaneously in individual analysis with the same analyst people in ongoing relationships with each other. We suggest ways in which violating the latter taboo by working individually with people in relationship may serve to prevent some of the potentially destructive consequences of the traditional practice of referring spouses, relatives and close friends of current patients. I. Theoretical Rationale In Psychoanalytic Theory, Therapy, and the Self, Guntrip (1973) wrote: "The critics of psychoanalytic therapy usually ignore the implication of their views, which is simply that persons qua persons, who can and do so obviously influence each other for ill, cannot influence each other for good; a conclusion that would nullify all that is most important in parenthood, friendship, and marriage, let alone psychoanalysis " (p. 176). But if the critics of psychoanalysis ignore the fact that persons qua persons can influence each other for good, then psychoanalysts, assuming that their efforts are of precisely this sort, are often guilty of ignoring the fact that, however fine their intentions, analysts sometimes influence their patients Page 1 of 24Taboo
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.384 | 0.114 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".