The Self as the Spiritual Subject. An Overview of Selected Concepts in View of the Positivist Paradigm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main predicament presented in this article lies in the complexity found in the internal structure of the human being when one searches for key elements that define its essence and uniqueness. The overview begins with empirical research as exemplified in psychology, continues in presenting chosen theories in modern philosophy, with an accent on the phenomenological method, and subsequently puts forward the synthesis of them both in psychotherapy. The last part is dedicated to theology as a distinct way to uncover what the essence of being human is, as based on divine Revelation; the latter is the only one of the presented sciences to be explicitly aware of the source of the mystery at the basis of being human. This article attempts to compare the research end results of chosen approaches by demonstrating their relationship to the most hidden aspects of being human. The analysis is organized around the concept of recognizing and accepting the place of mystery in the understanding of what are the most essential elements in the human being. As a result, psychology is conceptualized as a science that does not allow mystery; theology, however, is found to underline the presence of mystery in relationship to our divine origins.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".