Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study of psychology has been largely developed in Europe and the United States. It thus has close ties to the cultural traditions of those particular societies. As a result, the discipline and practice of psychology are largely culture-bound, limited in its origins, concepts, and empirical findings to only this small portion of the world. The discipline is also culture-blind, largely ignoring the influence of the role of culture in shaping the development and display of human behaviour. The result has been the dominating position of a Western Academic Scientific Psychology in relation to other cultural perspectives. Challenges to, and some possible solutions for, these problems have come from some recent regional and national conferences. In particular, the Nassau Declaration from the Caribbean Regional Conference of Psychology in 2011 and the Capetown Declaration from the International Congress of Psychology in 2012 have highlighted widespread concern for this continuing imbalance in international psychology. This article draws on concepts and strategies in psychology (particularly cross-cultural and intercultural psychology) to propose some remedies to these problems. It is based on a universalist vision for the discipline; this view asserts that basic psychological processes are common to our human species, while their development and expression are culturally shaped. The eventual goal is to achieve a global psychology that incorporates concepts and findings from societies and cultures from all parts of the world.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 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".