MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955333997 · doi:10.29173/jjs31s

Practical Divinization in Ecologically Threatened Times

2017· article· en· W2955333997 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nanette M. Walsh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Jungian Scholarly Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicJungian Analytical Psychology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersonhoodIndividuationArchetypeEthosContext (archaeology)Embodied cognitionSociologyEpistemologyRelation (database)Interpretation (philosophy)Face (sociological concept)AestheticsEnvironmental ethicsPhilosophyPsychologyHistoryPsychoanalysisSocial scienceTheologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Practical divinization describes the practice of connecting our spiritual and psychological development to conscious participation with the earth. This essay investigates the concept of Christian divinization in dialogue with Jung’s conception of individuation. Historically, the idea of divinization emerged from new concepts of personhood synthesized in the 1st century CE. Examining the ancient roots of personhood illuminates concepts of self and divinization within a contemporary theological and psychological context. Annis Pratt’s analysis of the archetype of “green-world epiphany,” evident in much of the literature written by women in the past three centuries, exemplifies the ethos inherent in practical divinization. A new interpretation of Matthew’s “Worry Not Gospel” imagines a female orientation of the text and further confirms the need for an embodied and fully participatory wisdom in relation to the earth. Practical divinization issues forth a call to action and a cause for hope in the face of ecological crisis.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.396
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Jungian Scholarly StudiesSame topicJungian Analytical PsychologyFrench-language works237,207