MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297686893 · doi:10.24135/ppi.v20i3.07

Conspiracy theories and flying saucers

2022· article· en· W4297686893 on OpenAlexaff
Lawrence R. Alschuler

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychotherapy and Politics International · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMisinformation and Its Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConnection (principal bundle)EpistemologySociologyPhilosophyMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How can we explain the recent enormous increase in the number of conspiracy theories and believers? Since the 1990s, two trends have moved in tandem: the rising number of conspiracy theories and the growing alarm over global warming. Is there some connection between these two trends? Looking to the 1950s, according to C. G. Jung, there was a connection between the number of sightings of flying saucers and the threat of nuclear war. His analysis serves as a template for our study of conspiracy theories, relying on the psychological processes of repression, projection, compensation, and dissociation. This article begins with a review of Jung’s study and then applies his approach to understand the current explosion of conspiracy theories.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.831
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.336 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychotherapy and Politics InternationalSame topicMisinformation and Its ImpactsFrench-language works237,207