Studying The Interpretation of Dreams in the Company of Analytic Candidates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seminars serve as an important, though undervalued, component of psychoanalytic education. The focus of this paper is on the teaching of Freud's The Interpretation of Dreams through a series of seminars presented to analytic candidates at the Toronto Psychoanalytic Institutes. This has been an essential book for introducing generations of candidates to the psychoanalytic concept of the mind and for shaping candidates' understanding and attitudes toward working with their patients' dreams. Four of Freud's basic dream concepts-(1) the method and its application to the exploration of the relationship between manifest and latent dream content, (2) the sources of dreams (day residues), (3) the dream-work, and (4) wish fulfillment-are critically studied in the seminars. Detailed discussion of these basic dream concepts among the candidates and with the teacher, as well as the candidates' feedback at the conclusion of the seminars, are summarized and discussed. Through the teaching and study within the seminar framework of the fundamentals of Freud's dream theory, a shared growth experience results for both teacher and candidates.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".