MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W14959249

The life and work of Donald Olding Hebb.

2006· article· en· W14959249 on OpenAlexaffabout
Richard E. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAcademic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive scienceFrithNova scotiaPsychologyPsychoanalysisSociologyPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In his book, The Organization of Behavior, Donald Olding Hebb introduced the concepts of synaptic plasticity and cell assemblies to provide a theory of the neurophysiological basis of behaviour. Hebb's ideas, as presented in this book and other writings, influenced all areas of psychology and neuroscience. Hebb was born in Chester, Nova Scotia, Canada and attended Dalhousie University (BA, 1925) and McGill University (MA, 1932). His PhD from Harvard in 1936 was supervised by Karl Lashley. Hebb worked with the neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield at the Montreal Neurological Institute for two years, taught at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, and was a research assistant with Lashley at the Yerkes Primate Labs in Florida before he became a professor of Psychology at McGill University in 1947. At McGill he taught the first year psychology course and wrote an introductory textbook in Psychology. Throughout his career, Hebb made many research discoveries, trained a number of researchers and won many honours. When he retired from McGill, he moved back to Nova Scotia, and became a Professor Emeritus at Dalhousie University. This paper reviews Hebb's life and work and the impact of his ideas in psychology and neuroscience.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicAcademic and Historical Perspectives in PsychologyFrench-language works237,207