MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2605697304 · doi:10.3917/insi.012.0029

Destins de l’homosexualité dans le mouvement psychanalytique

2017· article· fr· W2605697304 on OpenAlexaff
Jack Drescher, C Sebag

Bibliographic record

VenueInsistance · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aujourd’hui, l’Academy of Psychoanalysis and Dynamic Psychiatry 2 est ouverte aux membres gays et lesbiens. Pourtant, quand elle fut fondée en 1956 la position du mouvement psychanalytique sur l’homosexualité était pour le moins hostile. Longtemps, ce fut la théorie élaborée par Freud au début de sa carrière – assimilant homosexualité à immaturité – qui prima. Celle-ci céda le pas à des théories néofreudiennes qui pathologisaient l’attirance pour une personne de même sexe – ainsi que les comportements qui y affèrent. Suite à la décision, en 1973, par l’American Psychiatric Association 3 de retirer l’homosexualité du dsm, l’homosexualité commença – et continue – à être plus communément considérée comme une variante normale de la sexualité humaine. L’histoire des prises de position successives de la psychanalyse sur l’homosexualité n’a fait que renforcer l’idée qu’on ne peut séparer les théories psychanalytiques du contexte politique, culturel, et personnel dans lequel elles ont été formulées. Lorsque l’on retrace l’évolution des mentalités, l’on se rend compte du niveau d’influence qu’on pu et que peuvent avoir les analystes, autant pour faciliter que pour freiner la tolérance et la reconnaissance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.033
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.360 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInsistanceSame topicPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology ResearchFrench-language works237,207