MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2181138763 · doi:10.59539/1679-432x-v9n2-59

O objeto transicional pode ser uma pessoa? Teoria e clínica/Can the transitional object be a person? Theory and clinic

2014· article· pt· W2181138763 on OpenAlexaff
Walter José Martins Migliorini

Bibliographic record

VenueWinnicott e-prints · 2014
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychology and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsDalsa Corporation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObject (grammar)HumanitiesPhilosophyArtLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resumo: o objetivo deste trabalho é responder à questão enunciada no título a partir dos textos de D. W. Winnicott. Para tanto, foram abordadas as origens do conceito de objeto transicional na obra do autor, o histórico de suas primeiras aparições, as referências diretas ao tema e a discussão de uma vinheta clínica. Winnicott raramente se referia a uma pessoa como objeto transicional de outra e, quando o fazia, situava essa experiência no campo da patologia, utilizando, para aludir a ela, termos como “objeto consolador”, “objeto-fetiche” e “objeto regressivo”. Em contrapartida, o conceito de objeto transicional está vinculado a uma experiência indicativa de saúde mental, de transição entre a fusão e a separação mãe-bebê e de uso pessoal e simbólico dos objetos do campo sensorial. Manter essa especificidade conceitual possibilita discriminar nuances da evolução do uso dos objetos materiais pela criança e orientar a anamnese, o diagnóstico e o processo terapêutico.Palavras-chave: objeto transicional; fenômenos transicionais; D. W. Winnicott; fetiche; psicanálise.Abstract: the objective of this work is to answer the question posed in the title, based on the texts of D. W. Winnicott. To this effect we addressed the origins of the concept of transitional object in the author’s work, the chronology of its first appearances, direct references to the topic and a discussion of a clinical case. Winnicott rarely referred to a person as being another person’s transitional object, and when he did so, he situated this experience in the field of pathology, and when referring to it, used such terms as “comforter object”, “fetish object” and “regressive object”. In contrast, the concept of transitional object is linked to an experience indicative of mental health, of transition between fusion and mother-baby separation, and of the personal and symbolic use of objects of the sensory field. Maintaining this conceptual specificity enables us to discriminate nuances in the evolution of the use of material objects by the child, and helps to guide anamnesis, diagnosis and the therapeutic process.Keywords: transitional object; transitional phenomena; D. W. Winnicott; fetish; psychoanalysis.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), 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 score0.769
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.312 · 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