Reductionism in the Comments and Autobiographical Accounts of Prominent Psychologists
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many of the researchers in the field of psychological science use strategies and methods in which human actions and experiences are reduced to behavioral contingencies, statistical regularities, neurophysiological states and processes, and computational functions and models. However, many psychologists talk readily and easily about how their research might assist human agents to solve problems, cope, make decisions, self-regulate, and more generally "make a difference" and "take control." The authors considered informally selected comments by several eminent psychologists, and more formally, 73 autobiographical accounts of prominent psychologists to see what could be learned about the attitudes of these psychologists toward reductionism in their own work and in the field of psychology in general. In interpreting these comments and accounts, the authors posit a gap between many psychologists' contemplation of their work and their actual research practices. The authors also suggest that such a gap may be related to psychologists' educational experiences and their scholarly and professional socialization, as well as to their subdisciplinary attachments and contexts.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it