From the Individual Unconscious through the Relational Unconscious to the Social Unconscious
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Group analytic conceptualization of the social unconscious preceded its time by emphasizing such intersubjective concepts as multiplicity, mutuality, and radical openness, long before intersubjective or relational writings were first published. We can conceptualize the intersubjective field as a co-creation of the psyche of the people involved in the interaction, meaning that it is not the simple result of the people’s unconscious but is a new co-unconscious belonging to neither participants. The relational unconscious conceptualization, to which I will refer in this presentation, suggests a reading of the unconscious and the way we understand it that is different from that of the regular individual Freudian one. We are not talking about specific contents located in a certain area, that exists a priori and that we help illuminating in therapy. We are talking about creating the unconscious and acquiring “knowledge” about it with the help of the other through conversation. Extrapolating from two people to a group or even society, this is the space of the social unconscious. Here is my group analytic definition of it: The social unconscious is the co-constructed shared unconscious of members of a certain social system such as community, society, nation, or culture.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.062 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".