Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, I develop a view of psychoanalytic freedom that draws heavily on traditions of the Anishinaabe/Ojibway First Nation Peoples as explicated by John Borrows, one of Canada’s preeminent legal scholars and a global leader in the field of Indigenous legal traditions and Aboriginal rights. Freedom will be understood to be a dynamic process that is lived, a process that is thoroughly relational and contextual. The recognition of our interpenetration and interdependency with both the human and non-human world will bring forth an ethics of relational accountability that will serve as a guiding framework for elucidating a conception of freedom consistent with the dialogic complexity systems sensibility informing my clinical psychoanalytic practice. The latter view of psychoanalytic freedom will be contrasted to Freud’s conception whereby the restoration of freedom to the ego will be understood to be an individualist masquerade for the restoration of White male power and privilege. The article concludes with a caveat that the full realization of freedom in this troubled world requires a willingness by (predominantly White mento give up some of their privilege.
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 | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.146 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".