Logique psychotique d’(auto-)destruction et meurtre de masse. Le cas de Denis Lortie à la lumière de la psychanalyse. Partie I. Le projet d’attentat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article, qui constitue la première partie d’une étude psychanalytique du cas Lortie, s’attache à l’analyse des conditions subjectives dans lesquelles Lortie élabore progressivement son projet de meurtre de masse, commis le 8 mai 1984. Ainsi, l’auteur examine l’émergence, chez lui, dès 1982, d’un projet d’acte grandiose qui succède à un premier ébranlement subjectif lié à sa paternité. Ce projet prend ensuite la forme d’un acte violent, qui apparaît comme une solution trouvée par Lortie pour sortir de son anéantissement psychique. Dans son élaboration délirante, il dirige alors sa haine contre le gouvernement souverainiste québécois de René Lévesque, identifié comme le responsable de la destruction du Québec. L’analyse des transcriptions des enregistrements réalisés par Lortie la veille de son attentat incite à repérer dans ce projet de suicide-homicide une logique psychotique d’(auto-)destruction où prévalent sacrifice et altruisme.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".