“Project for a Spatiotemporal Neuroscience” – Brain and Psyche Share Their Topography and Dynamic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What kind of neuroscience does psychoanalysis require? At his time, Freud in his “Project for a Scientific Psychology” searched for a model of the brain that could relate to incorporate the psyche’s topography and dynamic. Current neuropsychoanalysis builds on specific functions as investigated in Affective and Cognitive (and Social) Neuroscience including embodied approaches. The brain’s various functions are often converged with prediction as operationalized in predictive coding (PC) and free energy principle (FEP) which, recently, have been conceived as core for a “New Project for Scientific Psychology.” We propose to search for a yet more comprehensive and holistic neuroscience that focuses primarily on its topography and dynamic analogous to Freud’s model of the psyche. This leads us to what we describe as “Spatiotemporal Neuroscience” that focuses on the spatial topography and temporal dynamic of the brain’s neural activity including how they shape affective, cognitive, and social functions including PC and FEP ( first part ). That is illustrated by the temporally and spatially nested neural hierarchy of the self in the brain’s neural activity ( second and third part ). This sets the ground for developing our proposed “Project for a Spatiotemporal Neuroscience,” which complements and extends both Freud’s and Solms’ projects ( fourth part ) and also carries major practical implications as it lays the ground for a novel form of neuroscientifically informed psychotherapy, namely, “Spatiotemporal Psychotherapy.” In conclusion, “Spatiotemporal Neuroscience” provides an intimate link of brain and psyche by showing topography and dynamic as their shared features, that is, “common currency.”
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".