MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955521071 · doi:10.29173/jjs8s

Dream Tending and Play

2019· article· en· W2955521071 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Douglas Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Jungian Scholarly Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDreamPsychoanalysisPsychologySet (abstract data type)Space (punctuation)EpistemologyAestheticsSociologySocial psychologyPhilosophyPsychotherapistComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dream Tending is a system for working with dreams that draws from elements of Jungian psychology and archetypal psychology, focusing on encountering dream images as living entities. The element of play is a vital but unarticulated aspect of Dream Tending, which merits exploration. The concept of play has been a significant topic for psychologists such as D. W. Winnicott, as well as contributors to the fields of social history and philosophy such as J. Huizinga and H. G. Gadamer. This article reviews the theoretical basis of Dream Tending emerging from the ideas of Jung, Hillman, and H. Corbin, and then applies the idea of play as developed by Winnicott, Huizinga, and Gadamer to the Dream Tending skills set. It concludes with a discussion of the clinical implications of focusing on play as a mediator of what Corbin referred to as imaginal space.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.019
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Jungian Scholarly StudiesSame topicPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207