Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to see the true value of the cultural-historical psychology, one may need to view Vygotsky’s scholarly endeavor as translational motion, in the course of which earlier developments become natural constituents of the later ones. During the first years of his academic career, Vygotsky introduced a number of important assumptions that he developed later in his theory of verbal thinking, which he had no chance to finish: the subject of Psychology is the process of people’s interaction with their social environment; the driving force of the intrapsychic world’s development is self-development which is based on a contradiction between meaning and sense; the person who gives birth to meanings is a totally new creature, i.e. a totally new subject of Natural Science. Careful examination of Vygotsky’s ideas leads us to a number of assumptions that introduce drastic changes to our understanding of the subject of psychological research. Thus, Vygotsky’s cultural-historical psychology seems to be a system that contains a significant methodological potential, rather than just a scientific theory.
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 | 0.028 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".