Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article provides a comprehensive overview of the concept of subjectivation, as it can be understood in clinical sociology. The aim is to justify the focus on this concept, preferred to that of the subject, and to emphasize its processual dimension. Subjectivation is defined as a process caught in multiple dialectical movements, linking therapeutic and political subjectivations, desubjectivation and resubjectivation, subjugation and emancipation, recognition of one's desire and desire for recognition, determinism and freedom, meaning and action, and self-affirmation and destruction. This complicates the definition of subjectivation: it involves grasping the subjective shifts through which individuals seek to grasp and grasp the socio-psychological processes in which they are engaged, so that they can reclaim their agency and the meaning of their lived experiences by performing meaningful actions and by giving meaning to their actions. However, these dialectical movements break with a romantic conception of subjectivation, integrating into its understanding its precarious, fleeting, partial, indefinite, and ultimately interminable characteristics. Moreover, in order to grasp the socio-anthropological and psychological conditions of possibility for subjectivation processes, it seems heuristic to link this concept to those of historicity and negativity. Finally, a dialogue with the critical analysis of capitalist subjectivation proposed by Pierre Dardot and Christian Laval allows us to question the political and emancipatory scope of collaborative research mechanisms in clinical sociology.
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 | 0.030 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.165 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".