MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Site/Sight/Cite of Jacques Lacan or Forget Slavoj Žižek? Implications for Art and Its Education

2010· article· en· W4246414501 on OpenAlexaff
jan jagodzinski

Bibliographic record

VenueVisual Arts Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt, Politics, and Modernism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAppropriationPsychoanalysisPsychicJokeStructuralism (philosophy of science)The ImaginaryOrder (exchange)EpistemologyPhilosophySociologyAestheticsPsychologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This essay attempts to introduce Jacques Lacan in an accessible manner through the explanation of a joke as formulated by Slavoj Žižek in order to develop what is the key to grasping Lacanian psychoanalysis—objet a. It is hoped that difficulties that surround other important terms within the Lacanian lexicon become more accessible through this example. Also, a strong distinction is developed between Lacanian psychoanalysis and post-structuralism, which has become hegemonic in visual cultural studies. I argue that Lacan is not a post-structuralist. Lastly, the essay attempts to question the Žižekian appropriation of Lacan by maintaining that there is another account of the psychic Real as forwarded especially by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, as well as Julia Kristeva, that may well have more import for the arts and their education. This remains as an unresolved tension.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.019
Scholarly communication0.0120.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.221
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVisual Arts ResearchSame topicArt, Politics, and ModernismFrench-language works237,207