Bibliographic record
Abstract
Welcome to the first issue of this, the twenty-sixth edition of Existential Analysis.We are delighted to be able to include a number of ground-breaking papers which we are confident will inspire theorists and practitioners alike.We open and close with two thought-provoking papers by Professor Ernesto Spinelli: The first of these is a paper invited by us, the Editors, to mark the occasion of the Journal's quarter century in 2014.The number of papers under consideration then meant that we were not able to publish it as planned, and so we are particularly pleased to include it now.In it, Spinelli explores the phenomenon of change, and in doing so, generates some very stimulating ideas.His second paper, with which we close this issue, continues and further develops reflection within our community on the nature of existential approaches to supervision.A dozen other papers are to be found within these 'bookends': they include a brief contribution by Anthony Stadlen, convenor of the long-established Inner Circle Seminars, which introduces a remarkable longer paper by the author Hilary Mantel, adapted from the seminar she gave on the significance of Laing and Esterson's Sanity, Madness and the Family.Digby Tantam, George Berguno, and Andrew Miller address, respectively, the often disregarded contributions of female existential philosophers, the vital importance of maintaining wonder and reverence for phenomena when undertaking phenomenological enquiry, and what it might mean to love clients ethically.Each of these, apparently disparate, submissions seek to make us think deeply about the core values of existential-phenomenological practice.This theme continues with Rupert King's paper, which describes his encounter with the later essays of Heidegger, while Titos Florides explores the notion of 'selfharm' in light of Heideggerian and Kierkegaardian concepts of repetition.We are also pleased to include a diverse selection of significant papers including Paul Wong's 'Meaning and Therapy', work by Voss, Cooper, Correia, & Craig
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 | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.081 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".