MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2335512665 · doi:10.1177/1354067x13500323

The role of distancing in Werner and Kaplan’s account of symbol formation and beyond

2013· article· en· W2335512665 on OpenAlexaff
Ulrich Müller, Emanuela Yeung, Sarah M. Hutchison

Bibliographic record

VenueCulture & Psychology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistancingReferentSymbol (formal)The SymbolicContext (archaeology)PsychologySociologySocial psychologyComputer scienceLinguisticsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PsychoanalysisHistoryPhilosophyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of distancing or polarization plays a central role in Werner and Kaplan’s account of symbol formation. It refers to the process of progressive differentiation and hierarchic integration of the four components constitutive of symbolic activity: addressor, addressee, symbolic vehicle and referent. Specifically, Werner and Kaplan suggest that distancing takes place between person and referent, between person and symbolic vehicle, between symbolic vehicle and referent and between addressor and addressee. We describe the theoretical context and different aspects of the distancing process. Furthermore, we argue that the distancing process identifies central prerequisites of symbolic activity that are largely ignored by contemporary developmental theories. We demonstrate the different aspects of the distancing process in several domains of symbolic development, including words, gestural development and pretend play. Finally, we compare Werner and Kaplan’s concept of distancing to ideas of distancing developed in recent developmental theories.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.596
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.262
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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations14
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCulture & PsychologySame topicChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207