Bibliographic record
Abstract
Threeing is a three-person solution to relational confusion. At the core of this solution is a voluntary practice in which three people take turns playing three different roles. These roles are indicated by a topological figure on the floor. The figure is a development of a Klein bottle into a six-part unambiguous figure called the relational circuit (Ryan, 1976, 1993: 93-103). Participants learn a flow pattern of moving through the circuit and follow it without using language (Ryan 1976, 1993: 104-113). Through this non-verbal role-playing, a clarity and ease about relationships emerge. This clarity and ease can be cultivated by practice and developed into stable, healthy relationships. In a sense, Threeing can be described as a “yoga” of relationships. When you learn Threeing you stretch your capacity to relate in three different roles. Just as practicing yoga can keep a person healthy and thriving so the practice of Threeing can keep relationships healthy and thriving. This paper is adapted from a chapter in a book length manuscript titled The Three Person Solution (Ryan: 1999). The purpose of this paper is to clarify Threeing by comparing and contrasting the immanent practice of ritualized Threeing with the transcendental mystery of the Blessed Trinity. By immanent I mean remaining within the totality of all that is part of one’s life. By transcendental I mean the presumption that there is a separate realm above, independent of the material universe, which controls one’s life. As my background includes
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".