Bibliographic record
Abstract
Just as psychoanalysis shows how psychological factors influence the course of history and society, sociological analysis reveals that psychoanalysis, like other sciences, far from being a pure embodiment of disinterested reason is itself, to a considerable degree, a social product. If we need a psychoanalysis of philosophy to trace the personal roots of intellectual production, we also need a sociology of psychoanalysis to cast light on the social, economic, and historical forces influencing the production, reproduction, and failures of reproduction—the rise and decline—of psychoanalytic ideas. In a recent paper presented to the International Federation for Psychoanalytic Education (IFPE) on his receipt of the 20th Hans Loewald Memorial Award (2013), Arnold Richards wrote: “Ludwik Fleck was the father of this field – a Polish physician and immunologist whose 1936 book, The Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, has been credited as seminal by Paul Feyerabend, Thomas Kuhn, and many other eminent historians of science. Fleck’s great contribution was the recognition that science does not develop in pure culture, but that scientists (and the facts they discover) are influenced by social, historical, cultural, personal, and psychological factors. The study of these factors is now called the sociology of scientific knowledge…and psychoanalytic knowledge is as subject to it as any other field of study.” Without in any way asserting strict determination of the ideological superstructure by the economic substructure, if Fleck is the father in this field then Marx is clearly the grandfather.
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 | 0.022 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.105 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".