Footnotes in the History of British Psychoanalysis: Observing Ernest Jones Discerning the Works of Sigmund Freud, 1905–1908
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his late historical and autobiographical writings Ernest Jones claims that he first heard of Freud in 1903, then learnt German and was practising psychoanalysis by 1906. Observing Jones's intellectual development from his treatment of Tom Ellen in early 1905 through to his ‘emigration’ to Canada in late September 1908, reveals flaws in Jones's chronology because his journey towards ‘Freudianism’ was far more complex than he or his biographers have allowed. Jones's contemporaneous publications suggest that his early psychological researches were informed by Pierre Janet and that he only discovered Freud during the Amsterdam Congress in September 1907. Thereafter Jones's knowledge of Freud was gleaned second-hand mainly through the writings of the ‘Boston’ and ‘Zurich’ Schools and his first attempts at psychoanalysis were through Jung's Word Association Tests which he only started using after he arrived in Canada. Revising Jones's autobiographical claims has implications for our understanding of Jones and for the early history of British psychoanalysis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".