MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991013767 · doi:10.1037/cjep2006009

Recollections of an accidental contrarian.

2006· article· fr· W1991013767 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Doreen Kimura

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale · 2006
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHonourContrarianScholarshipGirlAccidentalResidenceHistorySociologyPsychologyMedia studiesPolitical scienceLawArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

First, I sincerely thank BBCS for this honour. It seems especially appropriate to receive this award in Montreal, where I started my studies many years ago at McGiIl University. As so often in life, I got to McGiIl somewhat by chance. I was finishing off my high school senior year with the Saskatchewan government correspondence school while teaching in a one-room schoolhouse in northern Manitoba. I noticed an ad in the Manitoba Teacher's magazine urging teachers to encourage qualified students to apply for an entrance scholarship to McGiIl. I applied, and to my delight was successful. So I ended up in 1953 living in Royal Victoria College at the corner of University and Sherbrooke, at that time the McGiIl women's residence. For a girl from a farming village in Saskatchewan this was quite a change. My teacherage in Manitoba had no telephone, no electricity, no running water, no central heating (in fact not much heating at all), and no indoor toilets (Figure 1). In two months I went from that to a stately and comfortable mansion in the heart of a big city. after-dinner coffee was served to us in gracious lounges by freshmen residents. It was quite another world (Figure 2). In my first year at McGiIl, I took Introductory Psychology taught by Dr. Hebb. Although he insisted that we not take notes, and in fact encouraged us to bring our knitting, his lectures were such a fascinating series of informed speculations about how the brain might work in mediating behaviour that it influenced all my subsequent research. There was an oral examination at the end of the Honours Psychology program. question to me was, what contribution had Tinkelpaugh made to psychology? I had never heard of Tinkelpaugh. For any of you in the same boat, Tinkelpaugh did a study on monkeys in the 1920s that Hebb was particularly fond of and you can read about it in both the Organization of Behavior (1949) and in introductory textbook (1958). I felt my ignorance had not made a great impression on Hebb, and when in my last year I went to talk to him about going into graduate school, somewhat at the last minute, he said Why would a nice girl like you want to go into graduate school? This seemed a strange question to me - and probably elicited a gasp from some in today's audience. But I believe, aside from an element of real concern, that it had another purpose, which was to determine how serious I was. He pointed out that I had been a teacher and that this was a satisfying occupation, whereas research could be very frustrating. But I persisted, and managed to convince him that within the limits of my experience, I had enjoyed research more than anything else I had done. He ultimately became extremely helpful, and was instrumental in getting me accepted at Berkeley. I was offered a research assistantship at Berkeley, which at that time meant that the first two years would be spent doing prescribed research entirely for someone else (admittedly a world-renowned researcher) while I studied for comprehensive exams. This really did not appeal to me, and I went back to Hebb with the letter. He had always argued that graduate students should get started on research of their own very early; he agreed that the Berkeley offer was unpalatable, and I was then and there admitted to graduate studies at McGUl. In the first year of graduate school, all students at that time took part in what was called only Hebb's seminar. In our first assignment, we did a group presentation and in my group I was designated the organizer. topic was The circumnavigation of cognition, the paper by that name spoofing the overarching learning theory of the time, which explained much of what is called cognition as a series of unidirectional S-R connections. Apparently I had redeemed myself from the Tinkelpaugh episode. Graduate School approach to graduate student education emphasized doing research right from the start. …

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.271
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentaleSame topicLanguage, Metaphor, and CognitionFrench-language works237,207