“Après un Rêve”: Transference of Passion and the Return of the Hidden Ghost of Desire
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The analysis focuses on shared construction or transference of fantasy and desire among subjects who are in analytic relationship with one another. The discussion is presented within the context of observation in a supervisory situation in which the interlocutors develop similar fantasies about imaginary romantic objects. The supervisee’s presentation of a case of transference love in the supervisory situation induces similar passionate feelings in the supervisor and reactivates obsession for a similar romantic object. In this article I am concerned with the interpersonal negotiation of passion. The question that interests me is, How may the emotional discourse in analysis or supervision set off a chain of desire that can then be translated into romantic fantasies projected onto similar imaginary objects? My general questions are, How can one “catch a passion” or steal a fantasy from someone else? And who is stealing what from whom? That is, who is (are) the author(s) or the owner(s) of the dreams, feelings, and passions that arise from the analytic relationships?
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 it