MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094380626 · doi:10.1159/000272712

Piaget on Abstraction

2009· article· en· W2094380626 on OpenAlexaff
Pierre Moessinger, Diane Poulin‐Dubois

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Development · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAcademic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbstractionPsychologyConstructivism (international relations)Cognitive scienceCognitive developmentDevelopmental psychologyCognitionEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper is a review and discussion of Piaget’s recent work on abstraction. Piaget distinguishes between empirical abstraction which concerns qualities found in reality and reflecting abstraction which deals with coordinations of actions and constructs. In development, reflecting abstraction functions more and more independently from empirical abstraction, which, in turn, is increasingly dependent on reflecting abstraction. The authors argue that Piaget’s hypotheses are rather metaphorical.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.018
Scholarly communication0.0040.012
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman DevelopmentSame topicAcademic and Historical Perspectives in PsychologyFrench-language works237,207