Bibliographic record
Abstract
The position of the mental health practitioner remains fundamentally uncomfortable confronted with a testimony of experienced facts which contredict or surpass our understanding of common sense. Neither scientific rationalism, institutional religion, orthodox freudian psychiatry, or orthodox behaviourism permits one to openly receive this type of experience without its being subject to excessive deformation by their analytical or reading-based framewords. Recent work in the psychology of consciousness, based on psychophysiological, neuro psychological and psychobiological approaches reconstitute the limits of ordinary consciousness and the consensual perception of sensory reality. They also identify the physiological substrata and the cognitive mechanisms which ally themselves to another, equally as valuable, apprehension of reality. According to this latter, psi phenomena become exceptional, but normal, experiences. It is a question from then on not to discredit but to recognize their place in personal experience, and to assist, if need be, their harmonization. Having said this, much remains to be done to soundly evaluate these experiences and to attempt to understand their real physical substrata. This does not negate the need for mental health professionals to have the courage not to abuse psychopathological frameworks or pharmacological treatment, and to give ourselves perspectives founded truly on human development and mental health.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".