Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’auteur relate d’abord les circonstances de l’invitation adressée à Sophie de Mijolla-Mellor de participer à la table ronde de la Conférence publique de la Société Psychanalytique de Montréal du 26 janvier 2007 sur Pour « quoi » la guerre ? et la journée scientifique du lendemain, à la SPM, consacrée à ses travaux. Il fait ensuite état de l’argument soumis aux « panelistes » dans lequel il s’interroge sur « l’actualité » de la réflexion freudienne sur la guerre et dans quelle mesure ce discours se serait renouvelé depuis Freud. Il se demande en terminant si le souhait de Freud de « trouver sur le rapport du mal au bien dans la nature humaine une formule plus juste » ne serait pas prémonitoire de la deuxième topique qui allait assurer une base plus solide pour établir la métapsychologie de la pensée psychanalytique sur la guerre.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".