The Foundations of Social and Personal in Archetypes in the Concept by K. G. Jung: A Phenomenological and Semiotic Presentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article discusses the concept of "archetype" on the basis of the provisions of CG Jung and draws attention to the ideas about archetypes that function in society.It is indicated that in modern theoretical and methodological positions of research, an amendment to the archetypical foundations of society and the possibility of studying it on the basis of identifying leading archetypes is essentially declared.On the basis of the phenomenological and semiotic approaches, attention is paid to methodologically determined ideas: the human dimension of the archetype; about archetypes prevailing in the "average" person; about the model of the "main" archetype.In the generalized conclusions are presented the results that the archetypes have a social and personal in their grounds, and act as carriers of the meanings of the collective subject.Archetypes not only reveal and explain the existence of the world and man in it, but also create a certain emotional background.The mood of individuals and society immerses the consciousness of people in the general semantic and informational flow, which determines their involvement with those events and phenomena that are of particular importance for them and are contained in the archetype.Awareness and selection of archetypes allows you to analyze the stability of society in various crisis conditions and changes.The archetype representing the personality and social consciousness enables the design of social reality.In the context of defining the sustainability of social development, archetypes can be used.The need for rethinking and identifying significant archetypes is indicated, as the current state of social relations needs to develop a new holistic view of the forms and methods of interaction between social and unique being.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".