Adrift in a love story without a psychoanalytic rudder: A response to “Permeable boundaries”
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a discussion of “Permeable boundaries: Therapeutic benefits,” by Geist and Nocek. In my opinion, the core of their paper is the mutuality of their love and trust for each other, and they use the term “permeable boundaries” as a metaphor for these feelings, rather than it being the kind of singular, relational state they are proposing. As a positive contribution, the experience-near description of their mutual love for each other expands the degree of intimacy in psychoanalytic writing about analytic love. However, there is a lack of sufficient information to understand their paper as a psychoanalytic treatise, and I have a number of disagreements with their conceptualization of “permeable boundaries,” as well as concerns about the quality of their mutual love which they portray as idyllic but which, in my opinion, lacks certain key elements of analytic love.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it