MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106220915 · doi:10.7202/044182ar

Comment penser la fonction du père ? Vers une vision systémique de la fonction de triangulation

2010· article· fr· W2106220915 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueFiligrane Écoutes psychothérapiques · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalHôpital Rivière-des-Prairies
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesTriangulationPhilosophyMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La conjugalité des parents impose à l’enfant un travail psychique d’aménagement des enjeux d’exclusion et d’inclusion constituant le paradoxe de la triangulation. Nous mettons en évidence un historique des triangulations : celles-ci se définissant comme contenants pour les contenus que sont les fonctions préoedipiennes et oedipiennes du père, ayant elles aussi un historique. Cela nous conduit à plonger dans la mécanique de la triangulation, au plus près de l’interface intrapsychique/interpersonnel : nous développons le concept d’une transitionnalité de la triangulation comme espace de rencontre entre le tiers interne et le tiers externe. La fonction de triangulation classiquement représentée par le père prend alors une dimension systémique : père, mère et enfant contribuent, chacun et ensemble, à l’émergence de cette fonction. La prise en compte de toutes ces considérations nous conduit vers une modernisation du concept d’Oedipe.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.586
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.339 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it