„This is not the time to dream?“ An explorative psychoanalytical and historical reading of selected dreams in diaries written by Jewish victims of the Holocaust in occupied Poland (1939–1945)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diaries written by Jewish victims of the Holocaust played an extensive role since the beginning of researching the Shoah. In this study the authors analyzed a corpus of published diaries, which were written in occupied Poland during 1939 and 1945 through a closed-reading in the sense of a Reinhart Koselleck’s hermeneutical interpretation (1979) and by applying a psychoanalytic interpretation of the dream content with the help of the Zurich Dream Process Coding System (Moser & Zeppelin 1996; Moser & Hortig 2019). The dream-like narratives we extracted from the diaries` range from posttraumatic nightmares of persecution and violence to dream-like sequences like day-dreams, and alternative realities. The researchers present three single-cases of diaries that were written in hiding and within ghettos. They argue that the dreams depict a „psychic retreat” (Steiner 1993), a clinical concept that explains bastions of inner retreat where the dreamers are hardly reachable but safe from dreadful emotions. The authors use this concept for the understanding of the dreams in relation to the historical analysis of the course of the writers` lives and the ongoing existential death threat. Implications for future interdisciplinary collaborations are discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".