Bibliographic record
Abstract
Après avoir évoqué l’évolution des pathologies, l’auteur rappelle que Sándor Ferenczi, dès 1928, a posé le concept d’empathie comme un outil majeur du psychanalyste. Prenant en compte les plus récents travaux à ce sujet, il montre ensuite que ce concept se laisse décomposer en trois dimensions. La première, l’empathie directe, est un mode de connaissance d’autrui qui permet de se mettre à la place de l’autre tout en restant conscient de la différence entre lui et soi. La seconde dimension est l’empathie réciproque, qui ajoute à la possibilité de se mettre à la place de l’autre le principe d’une réciprocité possible. Enfin, la troisième dimension correspond à ce qui est couramment appelé intersubjectivité, et qui consiste à reconnaître à l’autre la possibilité de nous éclairer sur des aspects de soi que l’on ignore. C’est cette dernière dimension que l’analyste doit avoir à coeur de développer. Sur ce chemin, l’auteur propose de penser la psychanalyse sur le modèle d’une relation de compagnonnage : mutuelle, réciproque et non symétrique.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".