MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007091707 · doi:10.1177/0022167806297061

Practical Rationality and the Questionable Promise of Positive Psychology

2007· article· en· W2007091707 on OpenAlex
Jeff Sugarman

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Humanistic Psychology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlourishingRationalityPositive psychologyEpistemologyIdeologyPsychologyDisciplineSocial psychologySociologySocial sciencePhilosophyPoliticsLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is argued that positive psychology is committed to an ideology of technical and instrumental scientific rationality. The article describes features of this ideology, its historical emergence and adoption by disciplinary psychology, its pervasive influence across contemporary life, its problems and dangers, and the way in which it is promoted by positive psychology. By failing to grasp the extent of this influence in their practices and beliefs, it is claimed that positive psychologists inadvertently undermine the Aristotelian-inspired notion of human fulfillment they seek to advance. The upshot is that positive psychology will further reduce our horizons of reflection on human flourishing, as our ordinary capacities for practical judgment are devalued and supplanted by the presumed expertise of psychological professionals who effectively guide us toward unreflective ends.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.770
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.395 · 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