MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092272847 · doi:10.24972/ijts.2020.39.1-2.1

Intimations of a Spiritual New Age. IV. Carl Jung’s Archetypal Imaginationas Futural Planetary Shamanism

2020· article· en· W3092272847 on OpenAlexaff
Harry T. Hunt

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Transpersonal Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicJungian Analytical Psychology
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShamanismAlchemySynchronicityTranceConsciousnessMythologyTranspersonalMysticismPhilosophyAnalytical psychologyPsychoanalysisCollective unconsciousTaoismLiteraturePsychologyArtTheologyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This series of papers on early anticipations of a spiritual New Age ends with Carl Jung’s version of a futural planetary-wide unus mundus rejoining person and cosmos, based on his psychoid linkage of quantum physics and consciousness, and especially on the neo-shamanic worldview emerging out of his spirit guided initiation in the more recently published Red Book. A cognitive-psychological re-evaluation of Jung’s archetypal imagination, the metaphoricity of his alchemical writings, and a comparison of Jung and Levi-Strauss on mythological thinking all support a contemporary view of Jung’s active imagination and mythic amplification as a spiritual intelligence based on a formal operations in affect, as also reflected in his use of the multi-perspectival synchronicities of the I-Ching. A reconsideration of Bourguignon on the larger relations between trance and social structure further supports the neo-shamanic nature of Jung’s Aquarian Age expectations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.016
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Transpersonal StudiesSame topicJungian Analytical PsychologyFrench-language works237,207