Reconciling Stage and Specificity in Neo-Piagetian Theory: Self-Organizing Conceptual Structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Case has advanced a new theoretical construct – central conceptual structures – to help resolve the tension between general stages and conceptual specificity in neo-Piagetian theory. However, a closer look at the content of thought highlights inter- and intra-individual diversity in semantic organization, making the definition of stages more elusive than before. Developmental level and conceptual diversity are difficult to disentangle, whether assessing age-specific competencies or upper limits on processing capacity. Yet, stages stripped of diversity represent cultural ideals rather than real developmental phenomena. To resolve these difficulties, central conceptual structures can be reinterpreted as self-organizing systems that stabilize in response to general and specific constraints, yet reconfigure themselves periodically over development. According to this conception, stage and specificity are two sides of the same coin. Idiosyncratic pathways stem from the amplification of small differences and the consolidation of nonoptimal solutions, but these pathways progress through stable phases of coupling among conceptual and environmental constituents.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".