1 Canadian Journal of Psychoanalysis/Revue Canadienne de Psychanalyse (Fall 2007), in press. When the Thinker Betrays the Thought:
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is all too easy for psychoanalysts to write reductionistic and pathologizing applied psychoanalytic studies of artists and philosophers overlooking or downplaying their genius (out of envy perhaps?) and focusing upon their psychological conflicts, character distortions, regressions, infantilisms, pathologies and perversities. It was the proclivity of members of the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society to engage on Saturday evenings in this enterprise—Freud’s Leonardo being a case in point—that caused the critic and satirist Karl Kraus to set aside his initially favourable attitude toward psychoanalysis and conclude that “Nerve-doctors who pathologize genius ought to have their heads bashed in with the collected works of the genius ” (Kraus in Szasz, 1976, p. 113). In regard to George Atwood’s (1994) essay on “The pursuit of being in the life and thought of Jean-Paul Sartre, ” I wrote: “As a typical ‘pathography ’ reducing the life and work of a great philosopher to his character pathology--this time conceived in self-psychological rather than Freudian terms as in Hanly's (1979) earlier study--Atwood's account is guilty of the fallacy best refuted by Sartre (1943) himself: while it is no doubt true that Jean-Paul Sartre suffered from a self disorder, not everyone with a disorder of
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it