Bibliographic record
Abstract
(Ré)écriture du discours psychanalytique lacanien en traduction — Cette étude se veut une réflexion sur l'apport de la réécriture des textes psychanalytiques de Jacques Lacan à la réception de sa pensée. Jean-René Ladmiral est d'avis que les textes psychanalytiques « difficiles », de même que les textes philosophiques « profonds » et « obscurs », se prêtent mal à une seule interprétation, invitant ainsi « plusieurs traductions ». Ces traductions différentes découlent inévitablement des lectures multiples résultant d'une riche intertextualité qui s'inspire de plusieurs disciplines : la médecine, la psychiatrie, la psychologie, la psychanalyse, la philosophie. Les influences germaniques (Freud, Husserl, Hegel) ainsi que françaises (Saussure, Lévi-Strauss, Sartre) contribuent également à tisser l'intertexte lacanien, rendu davantage complexe par les manifestations de l'inconscient dans le discours. Au lieu de condamner la multiplication de lectures et de traductions, nous proposons que ces lectures et traductions différentes enrichissent et approfondissent notre compréhension de la pensée complexe de Lacan.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
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".