Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This essay argues that Richard Kearney’s philosophical work has something important to say to phenomenological psychology and, in turn, has something important to learn from it. It begins by highlighting a movement of return after deconstruction, consistent throughout Kearney’s oeuvre, that emerges clearly in the recently published Imagination Now collection—which contains some of Kearney’s most important writings. It then shows how this movement is a fundamentally therapeutic endeavor. A quick review of several recent volumes about Kearney’s work makes clear how his philosophy suggests an embodied and not simply a linguistic approach to therapy. As such, a certain phenomenological psychology is revealed as being implicitly operative in Kearney’s work. The essay then ends by highlighting three possible benefits of having phenomenological psychologists engage with Kearney’s work: a revaluation of the non-cognitive aspects of subjective constitution, a renewed look at the role of both the narrative and carnal dimensions in psychological research and psychotherapy, and an even more enhanced socio-cultural role for phenomenological psychology.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it