Revisiting Clifford Scott's "Body Scheme" with a Dash of the Postmodern: A Personal Appreciation Discourse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author has chosen, for a commemoration of Clifford Scott, to review and expand upon one of his principle areas of study: the body scheme. Originating in the neuro-psychoanalytic work of Paul Schilder, Scott's contribution conceptualizes oscillating primordial forces of cosmic bliss and catastrophic chaos that affect the somato-psychic boundaries of persons with severe narcissistic disturbances. The phenomena that Scott described lend themselves less to a stratified vertical classificatory approach than to systems of thought that highlight boundlessness, multiplicity, and less tangible horizontal connections associated with such postmodern thinkers as Deleuze and Guattari. Always the consummate clinician, however, Scott joined his theoretical perspectives with material gleaned from his analytical work with a spectrum of patients and, newly documented in this article, from his knowledge of the work of an important 19th-century figure in Canadian psychiatry. Vignettes of some of the most well-known patients of Scott accompany theory-based elaborations by him and those familiar with his work. The author, who has already written extensively on Scott's work, offers personal comments about the role the eminent Canadian psychoanalyst played in the unfolding of his own professional career.
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 | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| 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 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".