Bibliographic record
Abstract
The task of this paper is to gather together Guattari’s scattered references to magic, from Chaosmosis and Schizoanalytic Cartographies, and to reconstitute his position, using animism as a guide. For magic is a bulwark against positioning schizoanalysis as another specialism, and in maintaining what Guattari called its ‘eccentric’ relation to professional psychotherapeutic practices. Magic serves Guattari as an antidote to the scientific schemas that dominate psychoanalysis and psychology. Guattari’s effort to reanimate magic as a viable reference within schizoanalysis flies in the face of the ‘ideal of scientificity’. Whereas animism served Guattari’s decentring of subjectivity from the human individual, and his critique of the prevailing dichotomies of subject/object, human/nature, sign/real, to bring magic into play in schizoanalysis is to open it to ethno-psychiatric investigations of sorcery, as well as neo-pagan ecosophy. Magic is indispensable for understanding contemporary assemblages of enunciation, as it exists concurrently with the very forces that would try to banish it, as well as those which would attempt to exploit it for fascistic purposes.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".