Updating the descriptive biopsychosocial approach to fit into a formal person-centered dynamic coherence model - Part III: Personhood, salutogenesis and further topics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present paper the approach, as outlined in our previous articles, is applied to a range of subjects. Its main goal is to understand how human specifics such as use of language, cultural creativity, rational thinking and the use of abstractive terms interfere with human beings basic organic processes. This necessitates an examination at the level of semantics. The latter is referred to as the relationship of produced states to a meaning so that from a sender’s side they are meant to transport meaning from a receiver. Since an interaction of two distinct entities is at issue here, we have to describe the interaction in formal terms, so we talk about the hypostasising of a triggering contact of one entity’s change of states initiating a change of states of another entity. This contact can be accepted as a trigger or not as a trigger, a decision that corresponds to the most primitive form of (possibly also mutual) interpretation. With this model in mind, we can interpret different communicative settings, as the monomeric self-efficacy interpretation, or mutual interpretations in families. To interpret needs a physically memorised categorisation. Only this allows for fast and set-related attributions. Such categorisations can go wrong, especially in fast changing environments. If a higher resolution is needed, additional distinctions are implemented into the heuristic interpretative procedures. Human beings have additional tools for higher resolution in differentiation: practical segmentation and speaking. Afterwards, the products of material and logical discretisation may be re-combined into a new arrangement. The corresponding accessory potential helps to generate a world of its own, as a full-grown personhood. Human uniqueness hence is based on the individuality of each person’s material basis, as well as on its individual type of differentiation and corresponding attribution. Being aware of this, the also mental individuality allows to understand self-interpretative processes that support salutogenesis and an experience of being self-efficient, or not.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".