Bibliographic record
Abstract
The sensation function, a form of perceiving contrasting to the intuitive function in Jung's personality typology, is explored in reference to Van der Hoop's description of its distinct phenomenology: (1) a perceptual field in which details show up clearly but separately; (2) its association with two-sided, subject and object, transcendence. Implications are examined for individuals’ religious orientation when the sensation function is dominant or preferred, drawing on studies by pastoral theologians and spiritual directors, and the author's survey studies among Canadian Anglicans, Catholics and undergraduates in religious studies. Evidence is considered for the sensation function contributing to orientations to religion in the following forms: religion as (1) simplicity and presence, (2) providing direction, (3) practical service, (4) triggers to memory, (5) change avoidant, (6) preference for particular forms of prayer, and (7) a tendency to dichotomise. Conclusions focus upon the value of Jungian typology in providing an informed basis for differentiating a variety of religious pathways for psychological development, which may be useful to spiritually or religiously oriented individuals, and those who advise, guide, or teach them.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".