Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reviews the scientific advances and cultural trends that have resulted in the rise of neuroessentialism. It provides a portrait of the varieties of neuroessentialist thoughts that draw on the current understanding of brain function, and then uses these insights to see how neuroessentialist thinking might alter the mores of society. It argues that there are domains of modern life in which neuroessentialist thinking supports the development of policies that can be viewed as progressive and prosocial, supporting the objective of aligning innovations in the neurosciences with societal and individual values. It highlights instances in which neuroessentialist thinking may have nuanced but important unintended consequences, and that proponents of this worldview should thoroughly consider the ramifications of neuroessentialist thought becoming a cultural meme. The rise of neuroessentialism provides a framework for examining not only the range of neuroessentialist thinking that appears to be emerging but also provides some guidance as to the impact that such a shift in public perception may have on society at large.
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 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".