Connection 100—An Auto-Ethnography of My (Mystical) Connection Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper provides an autoethnographic accounting and analysis of my own mystical experiences, called connection experiences in this paper. This account, which is structured around a description of my early experiences, attempts to weave together psychological, sociological, historical, and methodological themes into a coherent contribution that advances our understanding of connection experience. The paper includes an explication of the four stages of the research project that developed as a consequence of these experiences as well as an examination of the processes, tools (i.e., MediWiki), and emotional, psychological, professional, and scholarly challenges of collecting and analyzing the autoethnographic data of mystical experiences. The denouement of the paper is the presentation of a conceptual schema aimed at overcoming nomenclature confusion and providing a basis for description, analysis, and discussion of connection and connection experiences. The utility of the schema is demonstrated when it is used to provide a clear overview of my own connection experiences, and the connection experiences of others. In order to facilitate critical discussion of the conceptual framework, a glossary of terms developed and presented in this paper is provided at the end.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".