The project of an International Congress of Psychology by J. Ochorowicz (1881)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the second part of the 19th century, there has been a great increase in the number of international scientific congresses, and they appear a necessary step in the maturation of knowledge. The first person to explicitly suggest the necessity of an international congress of psychology was Julian Ochorowicz (1850–1917), who was considered the founder of Polish psychology. In 1881 he sent an article to Théodule Ribot, editor of Revue Philosophique de la France et de l'Étranger , entitled “Project of an International Congress of Psychology,” which was published in Ribot's journal. In it he described the dispersed state of psychology in 1881 and the previous 50 years, including 12 subdisciplines ranging from psychophysics to the psychology of art, and how it should aim for unification. He suggested collective efforts to progress rapidly, with widespread collaboration and the continuous exchange of observations, information, and experiments. Having international congresses would constitute a forum for such exchanges, and in his article he outlined the steps that should be taken for putting together the first international congress of psychology. The proposal was quite extensive and fanciful, making Ribot somewhat doubt its realizability. Nevertheless, the first international psychology congress took place in Paris in 1889, 8 years after the publication of Ochorowicz's article. This quick development could be attributed to the creation of the psychology societies, one of the first being La Société de Psychologie Physiologique , which was created in France in 1885. The creation of this society also contributed to psychology being recognized as a scientific domain. In line with this, the final programme of the congress was less extensive than that proposed in Ochorowicz's article, focusing on physiological aspects and ignoring the philosophical ones. In the present paper, the historical context of Ochorowicz's article is outlined, followed by a translation of his article.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".