Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of dissociation in early psychoanalytic writing is examined in order to show the intimate connection between old and new theories and how they have been transformed through time and different models. Contemporary work on trauma and dissociation may be seen as an illustration of, and developing from, early psychoanalytic formulations on the organization of the personality. These pioneering ideas constitute an encompassing theory of the personality from which treatment of trauma is easily deduced. Psychoanalysis in the United States, which remained loyal to Freudian models, is contrasted with the British Object Relations School. The term, “dissociation,” has a variety of connotations: (1) observable clinical phenomena, i.e., symptoms; (2) a general principle of psychic organization; (3) loosely, several defense mechanisms; (4) a synonym for splitting, mainly within British Object Relations; and (5) the clinical presentation and psychodynamic understanding of multiple personality or dissociative identity disorder. This plurality of concepts may conspire against scientific integration, perpetuating a confusion between the differing uses. Alternatively, it can enrich our theories, provided we do not loose sight of the models that make terms meaningful. The various senses of the word, and the relevant theoretical frameworks, are illustrated with a case example.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".