Why 25 Years? Notes on the Long Trajectory of Roger Barker's Research in Oskaloosa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Roger Barker pursued a research project on the behavior of people for 25 years. As Roger's son I observed it through several phases from child-under-study to academic researcher. The research was driven by a changing set of intellectual objectives. The first was to fill a gap in psychological research: to gather naturalistic descriptions of the behavior of children. When the research revealed that behavior settings were much more powerful predictors of behavior than were psychological variables, the intellectual goal changed to record the whole landscape of public behavior in the small town. The findings then required theoretical work to understand the forces that govern behavior settings. Roger's theory showed how smaller schools produced more participation and a greater sense of personal significance than did larger ones. The fourth phase was practical research, notably about the impact of school consolidation. The current interest in context raises the prospect that new thinking about the environment of human actions will benefit from the idea of behavior settings and the work of the Midwest Psychological Field Station.
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 | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| 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".