Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, the archetype of the Child is considered as a psychological presence that fosters creativity and relationality for individuals and groups. The capacity for integrating the shadow aspect of human nature is a crucial psychological solution for reducing harmful biases and projections that negatively impact the subtle and emergent potential of the archetypal presence of the Child, along with the experience of actual children. A working hypothesis is that attentive listening to the voice of the divine child within each person supports processes of personal growth and spiritual transformation, in so doing mending the woundings of colonization and traumas inflicted by families and cultural systems. A Jungian perspective reveals a wound: the forgetting, through abuse or neglect, of the human relationship with the divine child archetype. The problem, from a Jungian perspective, becomes perilous, psychologically speaking: A person cut off from the child has no access to the bridge back to the Self, which cannot be discovered without the animating presence of the divine child. With the re-membering of the archetypal child in mind, the paper places emphasis on engaging with transpersonal forces that serve what Jung believed to be the religious function of the psyche. Jungian practitioners in community-based endeavors strive through arts-based practices to facilitate the integration of shadow aspects, as well as methods that seek to decolonize minoritized and marginalized frameworks and promote multiple ways of knowing.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 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".