Another History in Psychology: A Women’s Trio
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The history of psychology, subspecialty that has increased in relevance includes critical historiographic positions that point to be the notorious absence of women’s contributions in the discipline’s reconstruction, making power and gender bias evident in dominant discourse. Partial results of a major research rescue the contribution of three women whose works merit a more explicit and potent recognition effort from the one received until now. Biographical aspects are summarized in connection with the work and scientific production of Mary Whiton Calkins (1883-1930), pioneer of the last century; the Swiss Bärbel Inhelder, whose career evolved together with Jean Piaget; and the Canadian Joan Mowat Erikson (emigre to the USA), whose intellectual production appears concealed within her husband’s. Specific aspects of each trajectory are highlighted, confirming the presence of sociocultural factors that rended possible gender discrimination such as the minimization of their theoretical and experimental contributions or their elimination from history.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".