Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human experience of place can be conceived of as both an "objective reality" and a "lived experience." A more spiritual view of the earth has been advocated by some geographers, but relatively little attention has been given to mystic place per se. This paper begins with a discussion of place, mysticism, and genius loci, or the spirit of place, in an attempt to define mystic place within a cultural context. The term "topomystica" is proposed to differentiate this concept from the traditional discourse on sacred space. A typology is then developed in an attempt to classify the major characteristics of topomystica: topos, morphology, dialecticism, chronology, syncretism, naturopathy, and gestalt are each identified. Finally, a case study of Mystic Spring, in Victoria, British Columbia, is undertaken to explore topomystica more closely. Evidence suggests that although supernatural power is superimposed on certain places in the landscape by human beings in a variety of cultures, the research thus far into sacred space does not adequately address this idea, because it fails to fully explore mysticism in a geographical context.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".