Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1890, William James provided a rich account of self in his Principles of Psychology. Over a hundred years later, Hermans and his colleagues have provided an equally rich account of self, most particularly in Hermans and Kempen's The Dialogical Self (1993). One of the key distinctions in the former work is that between the `I' and `Me', a distinction that Hermans builds on in his concept of the dialogical self. Nevertheless, there are differences between the two theories of self that are developed out of this distinction. In the present article I look closely at some of the differences between the two theories, and also look closely at Bakhtin's contribution to the development of the dialogical self. Through a careful comparison of the works of James, Bakhtin and Hermans, I try to indicate how our understanding of the self has changed over the past hundred years or so. At the same time, the comparison of some of the central ideas of these three authors provides a basis for a critical evaluation of certain aspects of Hermans' theory of the dialogical self.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; 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".