The historical boundedness of psychological knowledge and the ethics of shared understandings.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychological claims concerning human activity, character, deviance, and life are thoroughly embedded in the practices of contemporary social worlds. Originating in ordinary language, psychological terms circulate not merely as science but also as history, making such claims historical artifacts about what kind of beings we are, and most important, what we can portend to be. Psychology as a codification of optimal human being is an inherently moral science, and as such all our claims are subject to an “ethics of shared understanding.” This is not merely an obvious ethics of standards such as enumerated in the various professional codes, which are meant, after all, to protect the autonomy of psychology. Instead we are confronted with an ethic of understanding possible human kinds that requires us to weigh scientific expressions within the forms of life they potentially express. Such a view means that psychological knowledge claims are not just ‘natural kinds,’ even if they satisfy the claims of the gatekeepers of science. Instead, they are embedded in historical communities and carry the historical signs of their origins. What forms of life our knowledge claims give expression to will depend on the ethical commitments we make in the bargain.
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 | 0.026 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.152 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".