Bibliographic record
Abstract
My concern with historical transformations in the conception of self has its own history.Its earliest traces can be found in my 1973 essay, " Social psychology as history , " where I proposed that as scientii c accounts of the person enter society, so can they alter the commonly shared visions of self.Authoritative accounts of brain determination of human action, for example, can shit the way in which we understand ourselves and our behavior.h e sense of self, in this case, becomes no more than an artifact of brain stimulation.And with shit s in understanding, so are the cultural mores set in motion and institutional policies transformed.Such concerns gained momentum in the later development of social constructionist theory (Gergen, 1994 ), and its focus on the historical and cultural lodgement of self-understanding (see, e.g., Graumann & Gergen, 1996 ).Most central to the present essay, however, was my 1992 book, h e Saturated Self .h is work was centrally concerned with the twentieth century emergence of communication technology and its potentials for transforming the common conception of self .My particular focus in this work was on the Western tradition of individualism in which the origins of action are traced to psychological processes within the person.For much of Western culture, the concept of the individual self -the conscious and cognizant agent of action -is more or less accepted as a natural fact.In courts of law we hold individuals responsible for their actions; in educational settings, we hold individuals responsible for their work; in therapy we treat individual suf ering; and in our democracy each individual is endowed with the right to a vote.Yet, this concept of the individual agent is also peculiarly Western and largely a by-product of cultural developments emerging in the seventeenth and culminating in the twentieth century (see, e.g., Seigel, 2005 ;Taylor, 1992 ).It is a view to which philosophers such as Descartes, Locke, and Kant Core terms of use, available at https://www.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".