A FORGOTTEN CONTRIBUTION OF HERBART (1837/1851) TO THE LITERATURE ON THE MEASUREMENT OF SENSATIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It was in 1824 that J. F. Herbart (1776-1841) presented the most complete version of his Newtonian model of events involving consciously experienced mental representations (Vorstellungen). In 1837, Herbart wrote a fragment (published posthumously, in 1851) concerning the measurability of Vorstellungen. According to Herbart, mental sensation- Vorstellungen differ quantitatively from the physical objects they represent in not possessing spatial dimensions, and in having magnitudes on a psychological dimension as opposed to a physical dimension (with the boundaries of the former differing qualitatively from those of the latter). Because, in Herbart’s model, interactions between Vorstellungen always demand the simultaneous presence of at least two Vorstellungen, Herbart contended that the laboratory measurement of the strength of a single sensation is not necessarily relevant to the establishment of either the validity or the reliability of his model. This opinion anticipated present-day viewpoints such as that of Laming (1997) concerning sensation measurability.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".