Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rationalist perspective on psychology is based on the belief that the most important aspect of human nature is the capacity for reason that sets human beings apart from other animals. Rationalist psychologists must be at least partly right in this belief. No extraterrestrial visitor could study our corner of the universe without finding amazing evidence of human reason and intelligence everywhere, even though it might appear a strangely self-destructive force at times. The rationalist perspective on psychology is more than just a flattering self-description of the human species. It unfolds to a complete description of human nature that can address just about any question that a present day psychologist might raise, from the source of happiness to the nature of intelligence, to the cause of mental illness and alcoholism, to the origin of values, to the best methods for conducting research. In the broader, philosophical sense of the word, rationalism continues unfolding across the borders of psychology in every direction – to politics, education, science, mathematics, religion, and the ultimate nature of reality. Although the rationalist perspective does not dominate today’s psychology, it was powerfully influential in the psychological thinking of at least two eras – the classical Greco-Roman era and the Enlightenment of early modern Europe – and it remains influential today.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".