MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Unity of Science

2015· other· en· W2886589957 on OpenAlexaff
Ian Gold

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology · 2015
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAcademic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological sciencePsychologyCognitive scienceEpistemologyPsychology of scienceCognitive psychologyPhilosophySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Both the psychological sciences and the neurosciences aspire to provide explanations of mental phenomena. However, the conceptual framework of psychology differs in significant ways from that of neuroscience. The question of the unity of the sciences of the mind and its pathologies is whether mental phenomena will eventually be susceptible of explanation by a single theory, or whether both psychological and neural explanation will remain incompatible and ineliminable.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.037
Scholarly communication0.0150.012
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.158
GPT teacher head0.533
Teacher spread0.375 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Encyclopedia of Clinical PsychologySame topicAcademic and Historical Perspectives in PsychologyFrench-language works237,207