MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2997699430 · doi:10.33212/ijfp.v1n2.2019.159

A commentary on "The cannibalistic impulses in parents" by George Devereux

2019· article· en· W2997699430 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Francesco Spadaro

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Forensic Psychotherapy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychicJealousyPsychologyIndigenousEthnic groupInstinctGriffinPsychoanalysisUnconscious mindOedipus complexDevelopmental psychologyEthnologyGender studiesSocial psychologyHistorySociologyAnthropologyMedicinePsychoanalytic theoryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper Devereux, a Hungarian ethno-psychoanalyst, naturalised French, reports some of his studies made among various populations among which he worked. These included Hawaiians, Indigenous American Indians, and some ethnic groups of the Aleutian Islands, Canada, and countries in Africa. It shows how among mothers and fathers there exists a diffuse cannibalistic instinct to which the baby may respond with a counter cannibalistic position. These impulses assume a universality and can be considered the unconscious universal origin of aggressiveness towards the other. Cannibalistic impulses represent a primitive matrix of parental aggressiveness, in which other causes of aggressiveness towards newborns and children may fit: jealousy, envy, perversions, and oedipal elements. Forensic psychotherapy may benefit from this knowledge indicating the psychic levels and capacities of the patients and evaluating the strength of these impulses in their psychopathology which may correlate to their inner time and their search for narcissistic power.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.011
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0400.050
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.328 · 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
GenreCommentary

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Forensic Psychotherapy→Same topicPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research→French-language works237,207→