Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resumo: Não se trata de supor que os poetas já “sabiam” o inconsciente “avant la lettre”. Há escrita no inconsciente e a Literatura ainda se escreve com letras. Escreve-se, no entanto, de modo análogo em um discurso e em outro? A letra é efeito de discurso e difere, portanto, em cada um deles, diferença que repousa na função do que se lê, literalmente. Há um real específico na Psicanálise que o discurso analítico possibilita, com a letra, escrever.Palavras-chave: o inconsciente como escrita; ex-sistência do inconsciente; a letra nos discursos.Resumen: Hoy no se trata de sustentar, como lo hicieran los primeiros psicoanalistas, que los poetas “ya sabian” el inconsciente “avant la lettre”. Hay una suposición de escritura en el inconsciente a partir de la lectura de los sueños y la Literatura, todavía, se escribe con letras. ¿Se escribe, no obstante, de modo análogo en un discurso y en outro? La letra, como efecto de discurso, és diferente en cada un de ellos, diferencia que reposa en la función de lo que se lee, literalmente. Hay un real específico en psicoanálisis que el discurso analítico posibilita, con la letra, escribir.Palabras-clave: el inconsciente como escritura; ex-sistencia del inconsciente; la letra en los discursos.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".