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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

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