Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artiklen fremlægger og diskuterer centrale dele af den amerikanske filosof og videnskabsteoretiker Ken Wilbers integrative begrebsramme som grundlag for en non-reduktionistisk religionspsykologi. Der argumenteres for, at man i arbejdet med at udvikle en sådan må identificere og integrere kerne-indsigterne i forskellige religiøse erfaringsrammer og videnskabelige tilgange på tværs af aktuelle og historiske paradigmeforskelle. Den integrative arbejdsmåde illustreres med et forsøg på at præcisere, hvilken form for bidrag til forståelsen af religiøsitet man finder inden for den aktuelle subtilreduktionistiske neurotrend. Endvidere konkretiseres det, hvorledes en selvobjektteoretisk forståelse af religiøsitetens funktionslogik og det såkaldte koncept om ‘spiral dynamics’ vil forholde sig til hinanden inden for rammerne af en integrativ religionspsykologi.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 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".