MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059391079 · doi:10.1080/19409052.2013.795183

The question concerning metaphysics: a Schellingian intervention in analytical psychology

2013· article· en· W2059391079 on OpenAlexaff
Sean McGrath

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Jungian Studies · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicNietzsche, Schopenhauer, and Hegel
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranscendence (philosophy)Unconscious mindMetaphysicsPhilosophyMetapsychologyTeleologyEpistemologyAnalytical psychologyPsychoanalysisAntipathyPsychologyPsychoanalytic theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Schelling is the least understood of the major German philosophers. His work has a clearly demonstrable influence on the late nineteenth-century psychologies of the unconscious that were a decisive influence on both Freud and Jung. Where the mature Freudian metapsychology is a systematic effort to de-Romanticize the unconscious, purging it of the characteristic Schellingian themes of transcendence, teleology, and theology, Jung goes in the opposite direction: toward a psychology of transcendence, with cosmological and religious implications. This makes Schellingian psychology a natural ally to analytical psychology. But to exploit this hitherto neglected resource, Jungians must overcome Jung's antipathy for metaphysics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.083
Scholarly communication0.0070.018
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0050.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Jungian StudiesSame topicNietzsche, Schopenhauer, and HegelFrench-language works237,207