Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comments on the original article, "Psychology and social justice: Why we do what we do" by M. J. T. Vasquez (see record 2012-18676-002). Vasquez pointed to numerous initiatives and task forces that the American Psychological Association (APA) has established to address the marginalization and subordination of various groups. There is little doubt that the concerns addressed by these initiatives and task forces are important and play a central role in the development of a just society. Although Vasquez noted that "social realities are important determinants of distress" she failed to appreciate the extent to which our social relations emerge against the background of specific political and economic structures. The cost of this oversight is the perpetuation of a politics of recognition that does little to address the economic inequalities that are a defining feature of unjust societies. Were APA to restrict its attention to psychological distress or access to resources, it would place APA in the service of maintaining rather than transforming the existing structure of society. APA should consider developing initiatives and task forces to investigate the role that capitalism plays in the perpetuation of inequality and exploitation. It may also be time to reflect on why an institution that claims to be dedicated to social justice has had so little to say about one of the dominant features of modern society.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.074 | 0.046 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".