MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161624115 · doi:10.59539/1679-432x-v9n2-67

O valor da não-comunicação: brincadeira de esconde-esconde/The value of not communicating: hide-and-seek play

2014· article· pt· W2161624115 on OpenAlexaff
Decio Gurfinkel

Bibliographic record

VenueWinnicott e-prints · 2014
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychology and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsCanada Auto Workers
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesValue (mathematics)ArtMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resumo Este trabalho pretende colocar em relevo o valor da não-comunicação, assim como a importância da dialética “estar só”/“estar com”, própria da brincadeira de esconde-esconde. Winnicott sugeriu que muitos adolescentes não gostam dos psicanalistas, pois aqueles se irritam com a ameaça de invasão de seu espaço privado e preferem um diário secreto. É estranho como nos dias de hoje assistimos a uma paixão dos adolescentes por uma conectividade ininterrupta, agitada e veloz, com pouco espaço para as pausas, os silêncios e o espaço de segredo. Como entender então essa aparente contradição? Podemos considerar que a modalidade de comunicação incessante e compulsiva que predomina em nossa cultura assemelha-se à defesa maníaca na qual um falso-self está sempre buscando os movimentos agitados e ascendentes, sem lugar para o pouso e a queda, evitando, assim, a experiência depressiva e furtando-se ao viver criativo e ao “tempo do sonhar”? Ainda há lugar no mundo de hoje para um Salinger ou um Proust? Palavras-chave: comunicação; adolescência; artistas; segredo; repouso.Abstract This paper intends to put in relief the value of not communicating, as well as the importance of the dialectic “being alone”/”be with” as we see in hide-and-seek play. Winnicott suggested that many adolescents don’t like psychoanalysts: they get irritated with the threat of invasion of their private space, and prefer a secret diary. It’s strange how nowadays we observe a passion of adolescents of a fast and uninterrupted connectivity, with little opportunity for pauses, silence, and a secret space. How can we understand this apparent contradiction? Can we consider that the incessant and compulsive communication mode that prevails in our culture resembles the maniac defence in which a false self is always seeking restless and ascendants movements, without opportunity for landing and falls, thus avoiding the experience of depression and also of living creatively and dreaming? Is there still a place in today’s world for a Salinger or a Proust? Keywords: communication; adolescence; artists; secret; rest.

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 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)0.005
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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.541
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWinnicott e-printsSame topicPsychology and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207