Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1958, C. G. Jung clarified his views on UFOs in a letter to prominent investigator Donald E. Keyhoe. The present essay analyzes the letter and the two men’s main writings on UFOs in the context of Keyhoe’s life, 1950s ufology, and historical revelations since his death in 1988. Like Donald H. Menzel’s meteorological explanation, the conservative opinions of Edward J. Ruppelt in Project Blue Book, and the unfair distortions by Edward Condon in his report for the Air Force, Jung’s psychological perspective on UFOs sits uneasily with Keyhoe’s absolute insistence that they are extraterrestrial. Despite receiving criticism from his peers for championing this view, Keyhoe was arguably the greatest contemporary influence on Jung’s thinking about UFOs. Charles A. Lindbergh’s 1959 meeting with Jung, in which they discussed Keyhoe’s work, shows that Jung’s interest in the subject waned as he neared the end of his life. Nevertheless, he had unknowingly borne witness to a shadowy cover-up that violated the freedom of information, stymied even well-connected investigators like Keyhoe, and continues today despite scholars’ efforts to disclose the truth.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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; 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".