Bibliographic record
Abstract
For well over a decade I have been exploring certain psychodynamic aspects of Freud's discourse and their implications, which tend to be scotomized by an ideologically-driven organizational psychoanalysis. Ideally there should be a continuity between the more circumscribed communicative scene of clinical psychoanalysis and the broader scene of communication with one's psychoanalyti-cally oriented colleagues. More specifically, a historical framework stretching from the Renaissance to the nineteenth century helps to highlight the distinctivness of that kind of discourse which Freud preferred to use. In particular, it was one which stimulated and facilitated both the associative and critical processes of Freud in the act of writing, and ours as well in the act of reading him. Such a discourse not only describes but also enacts psychic activity on the conscious, preconscious and unconscious levels. There is ultimately a democratic spirit in such expression, which I have pointedly called elsewhere Freud's prose of solidarity, and alternately, Freud's policy of a non-apartheid lexicality.
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 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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".