Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the article is to conduct a bibliometric analysis of psychological publications indexed in Scopus that discuss postmodernism (both in positive and negative way), or use its ideas to analyze different phenomena. The freely distributed program VOSviewer was used to analyze and visualize the results obtained. In total, 1892 publications related to postmodernism were identified for the subject area “Psychology”. It has been shown that psychoanalysis can be considered as the “locus of penetration” of postmodernism into psychological science. Since 1997, the number of psychological publications related to postmodernism has been stabilized in the range from 60 to 80 items per year. Six thematic clusters are highlighted by constructing the terms map based on keyword analysis. It is shown that the main psychological areas in which postmodern ideas are used are psychoanalysis and social constructionism. Three countries (USA, UK and Canada) shared almost two thirds (61,8 %) of psychological publications related to postmodernism. The most cited and effective author in this field is K. Gergen. It is concluded that although the explosive growth of psychological publications related to postmodernism has ended, this phenomenon continues to evoke a steady, though somewhat extinguished, interest of researchers in various areas of psychology. The question of whether postmodern psychology can be viewed as a manifestation of post-nonclassical rationality remains open, but scientometric analysis shows that post-nonclassics per se is almost absent presented in psychological publications related to postmodernism.
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 | 0.010 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.231 | 0.264 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".