Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depth psychology tells us that the unconscious surrounds us.It infuses what we think we know with secrets and mysteries.Whether it is goal of our research, it is always the secret companion of it.This psyche or soul forbids us the ubiquitous fantasy of modernity, that the researcher is 'separate' or 'objective' with regard to his or her material.There is a soul in academic research and, as Robert Romanyshyn's wonderful book demonstrates, there is a soul of research.Some books are masterpieces in that they are a culmination of years of painstaking work; work that is focused and rational as the academy prefers, yet crucially conjoined with work on the self through the imagination.The Wounded Researcher is such a book.Its expression, delicate, welcoming of the soul, allowing it to make alliances with philosophy and psychology, is the research it communicates.This is the book that Jungian researchers have been waiting for.It should be compulsory reading for all students of depth psychology.My own research will never be the same after reading it.More importantly, I believe that this is the book that the academy needs.For modernity has perfected research without soul.And in its perfection, as Jung noted, produces perfect weapons, perfect plastic environments, perfect thinking that is withering for lack of soul.We need, as Romanyshyn tells us, research as re-search, a searching again for something that has already called to us, yet we did not hear, or we forgot.Just as the soul, however neglected, embraces all, so too does the whole of the twenty-first century academy need to learn the lessons of The Wounded Researcher, in order to be whole.The book delves into the key issues of scholarly research that bring us to soul across the spectrum of the disciplines.These are principally: language and soul, poetics of research process, Orpheus and the myth of research, re-search as vocation, the transference field with research, hermeneutics and alchemical
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.029 |
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".