MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790913988 · doi:10.3917/cm.097.0145

Balagan dans la filiation. La troisième génération après la shoah en question

2018· article· fr· W2790913988 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Céline Masson

Bibliographic record

VenueCliniques méditerranéennes · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Après plusieurs travaux sur la culture juive et notamment les changements de nom des Juifs après la shoah ainsi que le retour au nom de la deuxième voire troisième génération, je souhaite interroger ce qu’il en est de cette identité intérieure dont parle Freud à propos du judaïsme, pour la troisième génération après la shoah. J’utilise le mot yiddish et hébreu balagan (désordre) afin de questionner justement ce balagan intérieur pour cette génération dont les parents sont nés pendant ou après la shoah. Certains jeunes émigrent vers Berlin, d’autres vers Israël, d’autres rêvent de Canada ou d’Amériques, l’Australie fait figure d’ailleurs véritable. Questionner l’histoire, retourner l’histoire sens dessus dessous. Les raisons qui poussent la troisième génération au déplacement ne sont pas les mêmes que celles de leurs parents et grands-parents. Bien que l’on parle à l’heure actuelle d’une nouvelle forme d’antisémitisme qui inquiète certaines familles juives et les ont poussées au départ de France notamment. Mais partent-ils comme leurs grands-parents sont partis au début du XX e siècle ? Comment partent-ils au XXI e siècle ? Et lorsqu’ils ne partent pas, comment justement transforment-ils les blessures de l’histoire familiale ?

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0110.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.362 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCliniques méditerranéennesSame topicPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology ResearchFrench-language works237,207