Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In pursuing paths to methodological reform, many have drawn on the prolific work of American psychologist‐philosopher Paul Meehl. In 1996, the APA awarded both Meehl and controversial German‐British psychologist Hans Eysenck with Clinical Psychologists of the Century Awards. Two years earlier, they had both signed the “Mainstream Science on Intelligence” statement published in reaction to controversy over research on intelligence and race. To better understand Meehl's decision to include his name in that public statement, this article first explores the philosophy and politics of Karl Popper as it relates to the incompatible views of Meehl and Eysenck on the value of psychoanalysis. Despite their stark differences of opinion on psychoanalysis and psychometrics, Meehl and Eysenck shared a vision of scientific psychology with overlapping political values that, consequently, included a commitment to the liberties of race science. This article suggests that interrogating the politics and ethics of research is a crucial aspect of doing human science well, including improving its methodology.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".