Bibliographic record
Abstract
The field of contemporary psychoanalysis has been immensely enriched by the contributions of Thomas Ogden. His reflective writing and his unique reading of others invite us to “dream” with him. Ogden embodies the analyst in the act of engaging. Like Jorge Luis Borges, one of his most esteemed companions, he priorizes the position of the reader. From that perspective his reading of authors like Borges himself, Freud, Klein, Winnicott, Loewald, and Bion infuses his own writings with the capacity to both integrate and creatively transform the ideas re-presented to us as readers. One comes out of Ogden’s papers stimulated by the immediacy of the encounter. His way of introducing us to these authors, and the links he establishes between psychoanalytic theory, practice and personal growth, is truly a masterpiece. How does he do it?
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 | 0.019 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.044 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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.
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".