MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W367514584 · doi:10.29173/jjs48s

Jung, History and His Approach to the Psyche

2012· article· en· W367514584 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Jungian Scholarly Studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicJungian Analytical Psychology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsycheAnalytical psychologyArgument (complex analysis)EpistemologyFoundation (evidence)PsychoanalysisHistory of psychologyPsychologyExpression (computer science)Theoretical psychologySociologyPhilosophyComputer scienceHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The continued existence of analytical psychology in the academy has largely depended on applications of analytical psychology to other disciplines. These attempts at “applied psychoanalysis” are in danger, however, of becoming examples of “wild psychoanalysis.” To remedy this, applications need to work at the interface of the two disciplines in question, building a firm foundation as the basis of dialogue. In this paper, I address the application of analytical psychology to the discipline of history by first exploring the ways in which ‘history’ and the historical method influenced, and found expression in, Jung’s psychology. Given the extent to which Jung evoked ‘history’ and depended on it as a hermeneutical framework, Petteri Pietikainen’s argument – that a revision of archetypal theory needs to occur if analytical psychology is to conduct meaningful analyses of culture – requires deeper consideration.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.794
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.251 · 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