Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is devoted to the relation of logic and psychology of dialectical thinking. It provides three lines of understanding of dialectical thinking: dialectical thinking as a form of developing content, based on the resolution of oppositions; dialectical thinking as postformal stage of intelligence; dialectical thinking as a form of operating relationships of the opposites. Each approach has its own applications to the organization of educational practice. The first approach is presented by the works of E.V. Il'enkov, B.M. Kedrov, P.V. Kopnin and other authors. On a meaningful understanding of dialectics V.V. Davydov developed his methodology of developmental learning. The second approach in the study of dialectical thinking was largely shaped by J.Piaget’s operational concept of the intellect. K. Riegel argued that the development of thinking cannot stop at the stage of formal operations. Later on, the subject develops a more complex form of cognition — dialectical thinking. Representatives of the postformal understanding of dialectical thinking apply it in trainings for the development of professional thinking in adult subjects as well as in psychotherapy. In Russian psychology it has been shown that dialectical thinking acts as the individual’s independent ability to operate with opposites that can be developed starting from preschool age.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".