Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The ‘social dreaming matrix’ raises significant questions about unconscious communication and the arena within which dreams are formed. Put simply: is psyche ‘in’ us, or do we live ‘in’ psyche? Beginning with some of Freud's early thoughts about unconscious communication and telepathy this paper explores aspects of post‐Freudian, Jungian and Group Analytic thinking, and suggests that quantum field theory may have important implications for psychological understanding. The paper is also an appeal for analytical psychotherapy organizations not to lose their nerve, in the present rather daunting legal and managerial climate, but to seek ways of attending to the ‘wisdom of the unconscious’ in their collective deliberations. An attempt to do this, at St Marylebone Healing and Counselling Centre, is described. This may provide a link to more ancient religious understandings that supplied one of the roots that grew into the analytical psychology movement. Copyright © 2005 The British Association of Psychotherapists
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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".