Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chaos and Interdisciplinarity, the theme of this volume of the journal, reflects the topic of the June 2019 conference of the Jungian Society for Scholarly Studies held in Asheville, North Carolina. I doubt that anyone imagined how relevant the topic of chaos would be, several months later, as we go to press in March 2020. At the Spring Equinox, which reminds us of the fundamental fact of ceaseless change, humanity is facing the social, cultural, economic, and political chaos created by the COVID-19 pandemic. We do not know what the future holds. It is said that the opposite of chaos is order, but kindness may be its true opposite, or its antidote and medicine, when chaos is painful, when it spreads, disease-like, among persons. Kindness takes little effort, but it begins with attention—and attention is scarce when chaos reigns. Chaos distills attention into the present moment and draws the heart toward the thoughtful action one can take in the only moment there is. Then one chooses to be kind or cruel, generous of soul or miserly. Momentary acts of kindness are more than momentary medicine: they are a tincture that dissolves into the chaos and, when recollected hours, days, or months later, soothes our response to it. “Performing random acts of kindness and senseless beauty,” a popular motto years ago, is a flawed idea. Kindness should be intentional and habitual, a generous impulse from one soul to another. Better: Perform intentional acts of kindness and enduring beauty. And so, at this moment, I name the great acts of kindness that made the 2020 volume of the journal possible: our terrific editorial team, especially Heather, Lisa, Matthew, and Peter; our generous peer reviewers; and the artists, poets, and scholars whose work is featured in these pages. The contributors explored the topic of chaos from a rich array of disciplines, including anthropology, art history, biology, climate science, complexity theory, cultural studies, ecology, economics, ecopsychology, ethics, folklore, genetics, literature, mythology, neurobiology, psychedelic research, religious studies, and shamanic studies. Methodological approaches include arts-based research, autoethnography, case study, hermeneutics, and phenomenology. May our work be a contribution to a thoughtful world and a reminder that beauty is always worth creating.
 Elizabeth Èowyn Nelson, General Editor
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".