Bibliographic record
Abstract
How does the infantile psyche come to over-invest the thought process ? Our aim is to contribute to the understanding of this particular symptomatic orientation of the Gifted Child, by presuming the impact of a family environment aspect on the evolution of the impulse leading towards sublimation. This orientation would be caused in part by the child’s over-investment in sexual theories, due to the absolute enigmatic circumstances of its birth. The «impulse to know» (first human epistemological tendency, which begins concomitantly with the Theory of Infantile Sexuality around the age of 3 years old) precedes the observation of certain family aspects prone to have influenced the over-investment of this impulse in Gifted Children : absent fathers, parents in great conflict, adoption or in-vitro births. An example of the presumed influence of these factors is offered through the clinical observation (which includes psychiatric interviews and full psychological examination) of three young boys with an IQ over 140, aged between the years of 7 and 13. The in-depth analysis of their projective tests (Rorschach et Épreuves Thématiques) puts forth the particularly painful characteristics of their affectivity, and their extensive unconscious preoccupations about their origin - although these are primary preoccupations that often lead to an exceptional capacity of secondarisation.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.078 | 0.020 |
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".