Myth, the body and wholeness : towards a more holistic conception of education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The literature in education is conspicuously lacking in any meaningful or sustained discussion of the body's role in education. This thesis suggests that body and mind do not mutually exclude one another but rather, they are the two aspects that, together, form the whole person. Paradox is a key concept here because it offers a vision of reality that brings together "apparent opposites" into a tensed relationship thereby creating a framework that allows for the integration of body and mind into a cohesive whole. This thesis argues that myth is an expression of humankind's paradoxical nature, and that the hero myth, in particular, points to a path that leads to the embodiment of paradox, and thus to wholeness. This, however, requires a journey into the depths of the body in order to get in touch with the body and the entire range of its feelings. It is further argued that this process reconnects us to our body. To embody paradox, therefore, signifies the integration of body and mind into a unified whole. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".