Bibliographic record
Abstract
Starting from a counter-transferential impression, the author cathects the topic of maternal preoccupation while leaning on the frame set by Green’s and Winnicott’s initial formulations. Within that range the maternal preoccupation has been presented under various labels, such as madness, instinct, spirit. The main thesis of the article holds that the maternal preoccupation becomes a passion to be experienced smoothly as a general adaptation syndrome of early motherhood. Passion is taken here as an internal state affecting the mother to bind her to her newborn and appoint her to a specific task. Three elements of that passion are noted: withdrawal, hypersensitivity, selfabnegation. Some paradoxical dispositions of that state are identified like the stirring of opposite tendencies, within the mother and in her relationship with the newborn. These features lead to the presentation and discussion of three dynamic aspects: the bisexual attitude, the narcissistic support, and the regressive risk. The bisexual attitude is to be found within the maternal preoccupation as such, not only as opposite to the erotic female. The narcissistic support comes from twin aspects of the object relation with the child, often viewed as a work of art. The regressive risk comes from the primary inadequacy of the maternal attitude as the identification with the baby is skewed by the mother’s fantasy. Finally, some outcomes of the maternal attitude are sketched, either as evolving gradually or as remnants, as shown for example by madame de Sevigne.
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 | 0.010 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".