Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychoanalysis (theory and practice) is alive and well in some parts of world like France, Brazil, and Argentina, but in countries like Canada and United States it struggles to survive as it competes with other kinds of therapies. Psychoanalysts in these latter countries have been seeking to understand why psychoanalysis is under siege and to invent new, more relevant clinical and theoretical approaches. What kind of psychoanalysis contributes best to creation of a democratic mind? is a (political) question asked by some contemporary relational psychoanalysts. The objective of my article is to suggest some answers to this kind of question by exploring lessons we might learn from work of a few key thinkers: members of Bakhtin Circle, Freud, Derrida, and some relational psychoanalysts of today. Two underlying assumptions of my article are: 1) an agreement with Stephen Mitchell that practice and theory of psychoanalysis should provide a better understanding of the relational matrix that makes our individual consciousness possible; 2) that dialogic principle (as developed by Bakhtin, Tzvetan Todorov, and others) can help achieve this goal.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".