MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118745314

Watson's alleged Little Albert scandal: historical breakthrough or new Watson myth?

2014· article· es· W2118745314 on OpenAlexaff
Nancy Digdon, Russell A. Powell, Christopher Smithson

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista de historia de la psicología · 2014
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurology and Historical Studies
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWatsonReputationMythologyHistoryPsychoanalysisLawCriminologySociologyPsychologyPolitical scienceClassics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

John B. Watson’s legacy is complicated by his reputation for scandal. Recently, Fridlund, Beck, and colleagues accused Watson of a new scandal concerning the 1920 Little Albert study. Hey argued that Little Albert was a neurologically impaired infant (named Douglas Merritte), and that Watson committed serious ethical breaches in relation to this study. Our paper shows that this alleged scandal is likely unfounded. We introduce a normal infant (Albert Barger) who matches the Little Albert proKle better than Douglas Merritte does. In our conclusion, we speculate about how the story of a neurologically impaired Albert illustrates some of the challenges involved in historical revision.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.543
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista de historia de la psicologíaSame topicNeurology and Historical StudiesFrench-language works237,207