Inclusion and Exclusion in Psychoanalysis: From Splitting to Integration in Our Theory and Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychoanalysis has been historically split in oppositional conceptual and ideological pairs. This either/or thinking is the “principle of exclusion,” as opposed to the “principle of inclusion,” framed in terms of both/and. This is a defence, which occurs simultaneously at the individual, interpersonal, and collective levels. At the societal level, it produces the emergence of warring groups or schools. There is a dichotomy between two opposing conceptions of the human being, which view it as either an isolated, drive-ridden entity that accepts relations and social groups only reluctantly, or as an essentially social being, with a primary need to relate. This has a major influence on our therapeutic practice and on the experience we provide our patients, which depend on both parties’ conceptions of the world, beliefs, and values, which should become the subject for the psychoanalytic inquiry and dialogue. When interpretation is conceived as the analyst’s technical uncovering of a hidden truth, this determines a completely different climate from one that ensues when it is seen as the result of a shared inquiry and dialogue. This is a set of positive values that must be preserved.
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 | 0.062 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.199 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.041 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.041 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".