Introducing The Enneagram: A Tool for Self-Reflection and Critical Appraisal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Enneagram is a multi-purpose tool that at its most basic level is considered a personality type identifier. However the Enneagram offers more than labeling and categorizing. It opens a critical debate about similarities and diversity amongst people and provides language for describing a wide range of human tendencies. It also helps students critically consider whether “the types ” reflect their experience with different individuals. The Enneagram has a strong connection to issues related to spirituality and provides a vehicle for the introduction of spiritual values. Social workers often have strong anti-labelling reactions. The Enneagram should be considered, not for its categorizations, but as a tool to develop critical thinking, language enrichment, self-other reflection, and a rich descriptor of human behaviour. This paper, based on the workshop given at the Canadian Society of Spirituality and Social Work (May, 2006), outlines the theories and concepts of the basic Enneagram, including wings, and triads
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 | 0.078 | 0.149 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.007 |
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".