Franklian Existentialism and Transformative Learning: Unlikely Co-Captains in Uncertain Times
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dimensional ontology is Viktor E. Frankl’s theory that contends humans are composed of their biological, psychological, and noological (spiritual) dimensions. Frankl maintains that it is in the noological dimension where humans freely choose their responses to the environmental, psychological, and biological conditions that befall them. Frankl’s humanistic existentialism is a pushback against depth psychology – which broadly is the belief that human behaviour can be ascribed to hidden motives such as drives, instincts, or the dictates of the unconscious. Some scholars have applied the ideas of Carl Jung, a depth psychologist, to their theorizing of transformative learning. Broadly, the aim of this conceptual paper is to chart new courses for scholars to explore spiritual and psychological aspects of transformative learning, more specifically, routes separate from depth psychology. It opens with brief reviews of humanism, existentialism, and depth psychology, before exploring how Franklian existentialism might enrich the already fertile and expansive terrain of transformative learning.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".