Response to Semetsky: Thinking of(f) the Deep End: Semetsky and the Complicated Conversation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An astonishing array of theoretical discourses appear woven together seamlessly in Semetsky’s rationale for using Tarot practice as a tool for education, drawing from theoretical traditions that range from Jung’s and Pauli’s theories of archetypes and synchronicity, to chaos and complexity or complex systems theories, to C.S. Peirce’s semiotic pragmaticism, to natural law, to hermeneutics, and to the phenomenology of human subjects and life‐worlds. This response considers some of those traditions in relation to each other, with particular concern for issues of language, meaning, knowledge, thinking, and human agency. The priority of Semetsky’s concern for individuation and integration of the human subject within their meaningful life‐world is observed as having paramount importance for her project.
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 | 0.010 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.035 | 0.052 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".