MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4387411414 · doi:10.1353/aim.2023.a909050

The Analyst as Storyteller/El Analista Como Narrador ed by Cordelia Schmidt-Hellerau (review)

2023· article· pt· W4387411414 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeffrey Berman

Notice bibliographique

RevueAmerican imago · 2023
Typearticle
Languept
DomainePsychology
ThématiquePsychological Treatments and Disorders
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPhilosophySurpriseArt historyArtHumanitiesSociology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: The Analyst as Storyteller/El Analista Como Narrador ed by Cordelia Schmidt-Hellerau Jeffrey Berman (bio) The Analyst as Storyteller/El Analista Como Narrador, Edited by Cordelia Schmidt-Hellerau In what may be the first of its kind, Cordelia Schmidt-Hellerau, a training and supervising analyst at the Boston Psychoanalytic Society and Institute and the chair of the International Psychoanalytic Association’s Cultural Committee, decided in 2020 to invite members and associates to participate in a short-story contest with the goal of publishing the 30 best stories. The result is The Analyst as Storyteller/El Analista Como Narrador (2021), a compilation of these tales appearing in both English and Spanish. Many analysts are drawn to fiction, Schmidt-Hellerau observes in the foreword, because it “fosters their capacity to immerse themselves in still inarticulate experience, some of which may seem of minor importance yet already carry the heart of the matter at stake” (p. ix). Interestingly, the “heart of the matter,” as Sander Gilman et al. (1994) observe in Reading Freud’s Reading, is the “line which Sigmund Freud scribbled in the margin of a number of his books when he found what seemed to him the essence of a text and its author” (p. xiii). It is no surprise that Schmidt-Hellerau has edited a volume of fiction, for she herself is a creative writer, the author of Memory’s Eyes: A New York Oedipus Novel (1920). The response to the invitation, Schmidt-Hellerau remarks, exceeded her expectations. She and the ten judges, all psychoanalysts, received submissions from 252 analysts from the United States, Canada, Mexico, South America, the United Kingdom, Europe, Australia, and India. The analysts range in age from young, still involved in psychoanalytic training, to elderly and in retirement. Ten of the authors are male, the remaining female. The stories are indeed short, ranging in length from under three pages to seven. Narrowing the selection to the [End Page 607] best 30 must have been daunting, but the result is a treasure trove. I found the tales intriguing, and it was difficult to limit myself to discussing a handful. Tellingly, few of the stories are about psychoanalysis. An unhappy character in the Brazilian analyst Vera Lamanno-Adamo’s story, “The Woman on the Second Floor,” living in “eternal grief and bitterness,” is asked whether she has been to therapy. “No way. I know myself better than anybody else” (p. 216). All she wants to do is obliterate consciousness. Her only delight is the little bag of poison, “the messenger of revenge,” that she keeps near her, recalling Nietzsche’s wry observation that the thought of suicide is a great consolation; it helps one get through many a bad night. In “The Underside,” written by the Brazilian analyst Carolina Scoz, a man has spent years in analysis, but the experience, as we shall see, has only made him more judgmental. The Chilean analyst Nicholás Correa Hidalgo’s story, “The Keys,” focuses on a teacher of psychoanalysis who is on his way to speak to his students about Freud, but we don’t hear what he will say. Apart from these brief references, there is nothing about the talking cure. Why? We can only speculate. Perhaps the analyst-authors do not want to write about what they do for a living. Perhaps they believe it is unethical to write about psychoanalytic patients, real or fictional. Perhaps they seek an escape from their work and wish to write about experiences that occur outside of their office. Or perhaps they believe that writing fiction enables them to express truths that are otherwise inexpressible. Ironically, many creative writers—novelists, playwrights, poets, and memoirists—have written about psychoanalysis, as I discussed in The Talking Cure (1985), but psychoanalytic authors rarely use fiction to write about their own profession. Upon closer analysis, however, the stories mix memory and desire, the domain of psychoanalysis. Nearly all probe their characters’ inner lives, the world unseen by others, and they juxtapose past and present, demonstrating that our imagination is seldom limited by time or space. Some of the entries are phantasmagorical, revealing a character’s dreams, which represent a royal road not only...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,021
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,072

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,010
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0030,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0050,005
Science ouverte0,0020,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0210,007

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,020
Tête enseignante GPT0,382
Écart entre enseignants0,361 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAmerican imagoMême sujetPsychological Treatments and DisordersTravaux en français237 207