How the launch of a new journal in 1904 may have changed the relationship between psychology and philosophy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research has used networks of scholarly journal articles to investigate the intellectual structure of the discipline of psychology from the later 1880s to the early 1920s. Here, instead, we examined the networks of philosophical journals that were closely aligned with psychology-The Monist, Philosophical Review, and The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Methods-between 1890 and 1913. We discovered that, although the first 2 of these journals published a great deal of psychologically relevant material up to 1903, material of that sort seemed to evaporate after the launch of the third journal in 1904. It was not so much that material migrated from the old journals to the new one. It was rather that the new journal was able to attract new trends in American philosophical psychology, while interest in traditional approaches seemed to dry up. The result was that psychology moved into a new and expansive era, while America philosophy was left somewhat destabilized as it attempted to reconfigure its disciplinary identity. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.007 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
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".