Studying The Interpretation of Dreams in the Company of Analytic Candidates
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.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it