2673 – A Study of Psychiatry in the Movies “A Dangerous Method” An Example of Boundary Violations and the Birth of Intersubjectivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
David Cronenberg's movie is an example of how modern films have replaced myths and fairy tales for capturing our personal and archetypal projections. The recent movie, “A Dangerous Method” features a fearful and erotic symmetry between; S Freud, CG Jung, Otto Gross, Emma Jung and Sabina Spielrein and this will be deconstructed through the lens of Jungian Depth Psychology, using three core principles. 1. The importance of the transferences and counter-transference will be explored. Then the rule of boundaries will be emphasized in the context of an ethical practice of Psychotherapy. 2. The phylogenetic skeleton and its ontogenetic flesh will be examined as it is inflected through the relationship to the father together with the eroticized aggression in the archetypal theme of initiation. Finally the fundamental differences between the two great scholars of Psychiatry- Jung and Freud, will be examined. Special reference to the role of the objective psyche versus the personal psyche, will be discussed.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".