Concept of Will as an Open Problem in Culture-Historical Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Outlines a new approach to the problem of development of will, emanating from the tradition of thought represented by Vygotsky and Bozhovich. The main conceptual de-velopment lies in drawing a distinction between two concepts – will (volya) and goal appropriation, self-regulation, executive cognitive control of behavior (proyzvolnost’). Both concepts emphasize the readiness and ability of an individual to pursue a goal. The distinction lies in the nature of that goal determination. In will, it is self generated and comes from the inner world of the individual while in goal appropriation, it is determined by an external source but is readily appropriated. A such distinction is supported by re-cent findings in neuroscience which describe the actualization of di˙erent brain structures depending on whether an individual acts upon will or willingly submission. Hence, the personality development is considered as a process of will development in which will and goal appropriation inter plays and progresses in specific stages paving the way for subjunctivization or becoming a true subject of that culture.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.061 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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".