Bibliographic record
Abstract
An attempt is made to compare and contrast a "good hour" in child and adult psychoanalysis. Since all analytic hours reflect the conflicted vicissitudes of an associative process, what function can it serve to isolate certain specific hours as "good"? While analytic process always reflects the simultaneous impulse to reveal and to conceal, it is argued that at times the mind "surprises" itself with its own daring and savors the epiphany before the forces of defense make off with it again. A child's surprising formulation of the nature of transference and therapeutic alliance is compared to an adult's more mature grasp and use of the same concept. Analysis and creativity are compared as activities that nourish and foster surprise elements, creating new stabilities out of their tolerance for instability and destabilization. Childhood is emphasized as the crucible par excellence where surprises are not only engendered but integrated. Child analysis may be more accustomed to surprises and perhaps can contribute to adult analytic experience by way of this unusual expertise. The elements of surprise in certain analytic hours are discussed in terms of their developmental psychoanalytic components. Hours can be termed "good" as long as the implication that more defensive hours are "bad" is resisted with the psychoanalytic conviction that the mind reflects the human condition and that therefore nothing human is alien to it. As Shakespeare put it, there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so!
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".