De la destructivité au dialogue : explorer les processus inconscients dans les groupes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
À partir des années 1940, le psychanalyste S.H. Foulkes a conçu la Group Analysis c omme une nouvelle épistémologie des relations individu-société. En combinant la psychanalyse et la sociologie et en donnant la priorité à la nature sociale des personnes, Foulkes a permis l’exploration de perspectives intersubjectives et transsubjectives pour la compréhension de la souffrance humaine en lien avec le monde social. Cet article explore, à travers la group analysis classique et contemporaine, comment les analystes du groupe abordent la destructivité, la haine, la régression et la progression des personnes, des groupes et des systèmes sociaux. Pour ce faire, l’article présente le travail en grands groupes qui permet de comprendre les processus primitifs et psychotiques, mais aussi les possibilités de dialogue produites par les interactions dans les groupes. Sous l’angle contemporain, la théorie de l’Incohésion de Hopper met en évidence le rôle des expériences traumatiques dans la vie inconsciente des groupes, fondamental pour comprendre la souffrance personnelle et sociale en relation avec les expressions de destructivité.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".