Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this chapter we present what is known about reasoning and problem solving, what is currently being done, and in what directions future conceptualizations, research, and practice are likely to proceed in the psychological literature. In our discussion, we attempt to clarify the distinction between reasoning and problem solving, present major theories of reasoning and problem solving, and emphasize the importance of background knowledge in both of these forms of thinking. In discussing the importance of knowledge in reasoning, for example, we offer evidence from studies of expert problem solving that illustrate the importance of background knowledge in facilitating the selection of strategies for successful performance. Moreover, we identify a recurring challenge for theories of reasoning and problem solving, namely, the frame problem (Dennett, 1990; Fodor, 1983). The frame problem involves deciding which beliefs from a multitude of different beliefs to consider when solving a task or when updating beliefs after an action has occurred. Finally, we conclude by suggesting that successful reasoning might be akin to expert problem solving—an iterative and systematic process of pattern detection and classification. Connectionist models can provide an avenue for investigating such a pattern classification account of reasoning.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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".