Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, the author explores the clinical presentation of two patients who have recourse to fetishistic solutions. In one case, that of addictive sexuality, the patient is a foot fetishist; in the other, the fetishism takes the form of cross-dressing. In her discussion of the clinical material, the author develops issues raised by contemporary psychoanalysts concerning the Freudian metapsychology of perversion, the paradigm for which is fetishism. Contemporary ideas on fetishism have much less to do with sexual issues as such and more to do with the vicissitudes of primary narcissism: the fetishistic solution involves, above all, a primitive sense of identity that goes beyond sexual identification and object choice. The author then shows how some forms of so-called perverse sexual behaviour may in fact be an attempt to rebuild earlier deficiencies in the self's relationship with the primary object. With non-neurotic patients, the therapeutic process consists in bringing to the fore what was missed out in the primary organization of self-identity and in restoring the dimension of affect—failures that evoke the absence, in the primary environment, of any sharing of affect or mirroring potentiality.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| 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".