Bibliographic record
Abstract
No voy a hacer el relato de las complejas relaciones entre Freud y Charcot. Quisiera, para empezar, resumir simplemente el modo en que, por lo general, es considerado este vnculo. Fue el mismo Freud quien propuso la idea de un "Charcot vidente" (Seher) 3 . La expresin es ambigua : "vidente", quiere decir que alguien hace uso de su facultad visual para conocer lo que lo rodea ; pero tambin quiere decir que alguien es un visionario, un profeta en su gnero, y as, muy pronto, es alguien capaz de delirar. Ms all de esta ambigedad, lo que permanece incontestable es que Freud comprendi muy bien que Charcot abordaba a la enfermedad mental, a la histeria en particular, a travs de categoras visuales. En tanto que categoras, estas aspiraban a un ms all de la simple descripcin : tenan la ambicin filosfica del eidos, y Charcot las desarrollaba para constituir una forma del sntoma, no solamente en el sentido de una ley de su aspecto (de su apariencia), sino tambin en el sentido ms radical de su ley morfogentica (ley de su aparicin), incluso de su etiologa, de su causa esencial. 3
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.137 | 0.049 |
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".