MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Modernity Psychosis: The Evolutionary Psychoanalytic Social Theory of Eli Sagan

2012· article· en· W4408629189 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Donald L. Carveth

Bibliographic record

VenueClio s Psyche · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychoanalysis, Philosophy, and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychoanalytic theoryModernityPsychosisPsychoanalysisSociologyPsychologyPhilosophyEpistemologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eli Sagan’s work rests on the assumption that psychoanalytic theory can be enormously useful in understanding society, provided that theory is used in a critical and non-reductionist manner. Robert Bellah writes of Sagan’s The Lust to Annihilate: A Psychoanalytic Study of Violence in Ancient Greek Culture (1979), “Not since E.R. Dodds’ The Greeks and the Irrational has anyone made so major a contribution to the understanding of the development of Greek moral ideas.” Dorothy Dinnerstein wrote of Sagan’s At the Dawn of Tyranny (1985), “This is a wonderfully original and incisive book—a book with profound bearing upon the psychology and politics that now threaten a sudden end to life on earth.” Karl Menninger wrote: “Eli Sagan gives us deep insights and profound thoughts relevant to our imminent self-destruction.” In addition to his many intellectual achievements, Eli has been active in national U.S. politics and even holds the distinction of having been listed twice on the John Dean/Richard Nixon “Enemies List.” This essay is a summary of presentations given by Eli Sagan and me on September 12, 2012—sponsored by the Toronto Psychoanalytic Society and co-sponsored by the Psychohistory Forum.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.028
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClio s PsycheSame topicPsychoanalysis, Philosophy, and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207