Occluded humanistic qualitative research: Implications for positive psychology.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A reply is given to the charge made by the originators of the current positive psychology movement that humanistic psychology has not provided an adequate empirical base for its positive psychology. It is observed that although it is more about ontology, or the nature of being, than a scientific field as such, there is an extensive body of empirical qualitative research pertinent to humanistic psychology, including the positive psychology it originated. It is argued that the visibility of this research has been occluded, however, for two main reasons. The first is that humanistic qualitative research is often published in outlets not directly connectable to humanistic psychology. The second is that representatives of humanistic psychology have failed to take into account relevant returns from some qualitative research methods. The argument is supported by studies of the publication of qualitative research. A call is put out for broader surveys of humanistic qualitative research and for more publication of...
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 | 0.461 | 0.483 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.113 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.041 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".