Adrift in a love story without a psychoanalytic rudder: A response to “Permeable boundaries”
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.
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 | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| 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 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".