Analyzing forms of superego functioning as mentalizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of mentalization seeks to understand the transformation processes of physical quantity into psychical quality through the emergence, development and organization of mental representations. Often discussed in relation to the functioning of both the id and the ego, it is here proposed that the degree of mentalization also determines the level of functioning and maturity of the hostile, self‐punitive superego. Luquet's description of four layers of thought (primary mental representations, metaprimary thinking, metaconscious intuitive thinking, conscious verbal thought) serves as a guide to explore issues of the forms of thinking involved in punitive superego activity. Technical implications are also examined to suggest that three steps can be differentiated in the developing capacity to represent the superego and to become conscious of its workings. The first objective is to help the ego observe its own activity, in the face of a still, unobserved hostile endopsychic agent (Gray, 1994). The second step is to meet the form and intentions of this agent, to facilitate its mental representation and elaboration. Achievement of the final step implies a growing capacity to take some responsibility for this hostile inner agent, once its activity is comparatively more available to self‐observation.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".