MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025293126 · doi:10.1002/jhbs.20301

Revisiting Wittgenstein on Köhler and Gestalt psychology

2008· letter· en· W2025293126 on OpenAlexaff
John G. Benjafield

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences · 2008
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSocial Representations and Identity
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGestalt psychologyConfusionEpistemologyPhilosophyArgument (complex analysis)PsychologyPsychoanalysisPerception

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In an article in this journal, Nicholas Pastore rejected Ludwig Wittgenstein's critique of Wolfgang Köhler and Gestalt psychology. Pastore appears not to have appreciated Wittgenstein's argument that Köhler mistook conceptual questions for factual ones. A simi-lar confusion seems to underlie at least some aspects of contemporary neuroscience. Be that as it may, Wittgenstein has had minimal influence on the research practices of psychologists while Köhler remains influential. This outcome would not have surprised Wittgenstein, who predicted that scientists would not see his work as relevant to theirs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.260
Threshold uncertainty score0.734

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.248 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations12
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the History of the Behavioral SciencesSame topicSocial Representations and IdentityFrench-language works237,207