Living in a Material World: Reflecting on Some Assumptions of Health Psychology
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
AS WE ENTER the 21st century a major challenge for health psychologists is to reflect on the adequacy of our theories and methods for improving the health of the world's masses.While many of us may think that our theories developed in the quiet of the academic seminar room are at least benign, the evidence suggests that this may not be the case.For example, in a recent review Waldo and Coates (2000) considered the role of behavioural science, and implicitly of health psychology, in the worldwide programme to develop a strategy to halt the spread of AIDS, the most relentless infectious disease that has led to the deaths of millions in the developing world.They argued that the very theoretical assumptions of health psychology have actually hindered attempts to control this epidemic.Through persistently directing attention towards the individual level of analysis in explaining health-related behaviours, health psychology has contributed to masking the role of economic, political and symbolic social inequalities in patterns of ill-health, both globally and within particular
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 | 0.018 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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