Why We Should Stop Conflating the Conscience with the Superego and Expand Structural Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Freud’s decision to incorporate conscience and the ego-ideal into the superego has made it difficult for us to recognize the conflicts between, for example, the superego and the conscience, the ego-ideal and the superego, the ego-ideal and the ego, etc. When we recognize five instead of three structures and the conflicts both among and within each, there are some fifteen conflicts in total, of which we have intensely studied only a few. Recognition of a conscience grounded in identification with the good part-object and distinct from the superego grounded in identification with the bad part-object enables us to understand that while in our clinical work it is essential to establish a non-judgmental atmosphere, we must carry the conscience in the treatment until such time as, with our help, our patients are able to carry it themselves, as this is their only avenue of escape from the persecutory superego. La decision de Freud d’assimiler la conscience et l’ideal du moi avec le surmoi nous empeche de reconnaitre les conflits entre le surmoi et la conscience, l’ideal du moi et le surmoi, l’ideal du moi et le moi et ainsi de suite. Quand nous reconnaissons cinq structures au lieu de trois, les conflits entre elles et a l’interieur de chacune, nous obtenons a peu pres quinze conflits dont nous avons accompli l’etude approfondie que de quelques-uns. La reconnaissance d’une conscience appuyee sur l’identification avec le bon objet partiel et differente du surmoi, celui-ci fonde sur l’identification avec le mauvais objet partiel, nous permet de comprendre que – bien qu’il soit necessaire d’etablir un environnement clinique hors jugements categoriques – nous devons porter la conscience dans le traitement jusqu’au moment ou, grâce a notre aide, nos patients puissent le soutenir eux-memes puisque ceci fournit le seul moyen de se liberer du surmoi tourmenteur.
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 | 0.028 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.088 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.033 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".