MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1583760985 · doi:10.1353/mos.2011.a450726

Sidestepping: “Freud After Derrida”

2011· article· en· W1583760985 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Samuel Weber

Bibliographic record

VenueMosaic · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophy, Ethics, and Existentialism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTask (project management)Set (abstract data type)PsychoanalysisPhilosophyFreud's Psychoanalytic TheoriesEpistemologyDeath drivePsychologyComputer sciencePsychoanalytic theoryManagementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The thought of Freud accompanied the work of Derrida from beginning to end, even if its "concepts," as Derrida wrote, were "inadequate" to the task it had set for itself. Derrida's own notion of "auto-immunity" can thus be seen as an effort to rethink and elaborate the implications of Freud's notion of a "death-drive." But Freud's concepts can also serve to rethink Derrida's own project as well. Each comes and is "after" the other. This essay was originally published in Mosaic 44.3.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.037
Scholarly communication0.0080.010
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.149 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMosaicSame topicPhilosophy, Ethics, and ExistentialismFrench-language works237,207