Bibliographic record
Abstract
From many contemporary theoretical perspectives, the body and emotions play little role in the development of thinking and consciousness. If emotions are given any part it is in biasing thinking, rather then contributing to cognitive development. This volume, in contrast, presents alternatives to that position. From our perspective, embodied engagement with others – necessarily involving emotions – has a role in structuring the interactional conditions in which the development of thinking occurs. Just the body and emotions, however, are insufficient; the mythical baby isolated on a desert island would have a body and emotions (or at least the potential for their further development), but would not go on to develop human forms of thinking. What is needed is a shared history of routine patterns of interpersonal engagement. The body and emotions are necessary for setting up these forms of interaction and routines in which communication can emerge and then thinking and consciousness. In this sense, the development of human forms of thinking requires a social environment. We draw from Mead the point that self-awareness arises from interacting with others, and thus, self-consciousness is inherently social (Farr 1980; Mead 1909, 1910a, 1910b, 1922, 1934; Morss 1985). Keywords: Infant communication; gestures; social cognition; meaning; G.H. Mead
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.014 |
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".