Bibliographic record
Abstract
This text is based on the hypothesis that every theory on the psychology of personality must inevitably, in one manner or another, have a sociological referent, that is to say, it must refer to a body of knowledge which deals with a diversity of social contexts and their relations to individuals. According to this working hypothesis, such a sociology is implicit. This text then discusses a group of theoretical approaches in an effort to verify this hypothesis. This approach allows the extrication of diverse forms or diverse expressions of this implicit sociology within this context several currents are rapidly explored : psychoanalysis, behaviorism, gestalt, classical theory of needs. The author also comments on the approach, inspired by oriental techniques or philosophies, which employs the notion of myth to deepen self awareness. Finally, from the same perspective, he comments at greater length on the work of Carl Rogers, highlighting the diverse form of implicit sociology. In addition to Carl Rogers, this text refers to Freud, Jung, Adler, Reich, Perls, Goodman, Skinner as well as to Ginette Paris and various analysts of Taoism. In conclusion, the author indicates the significance of his analysis from double viewpoint of psychological theory and practice.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".