Delimitación conceptual de la inteligencia. Un análisis de las dimensiones física, funcional y conductual
Bibliographic record
Abstract
espanolLa conceptualizacion psicologica de la inteligencia ha dependido, tradicionalmente, de definiciones ad hoc al servicio de intereses ideologicos y culturales especificos. La mayor parte de las mismas apelaban a formas de comportamiento, definidas desde un marco cultural y social, a fin de poder validar los distintos mecanismos de medicion. Sin embargo, al intentar comparaciones entre culturas o entre epocas historicas, estos planteamientos se encontraban faltos de eficacia, cayendo en referentes de la cultura dominante y el momento historico presente. La confusion generada por estas situaciones se origina en la propia conceptualizacion de la inteligencia, originalmente centrada en las operaciones de aprehension y comprension, la cual se abandono en favor de las orientaciones comportamentales. Al recuperar esta nocion clasica, pero analizarla desde el marco de conocimiento neurologico y cognitivo actual, se accede a una esquematizacion del funcionamiento intelectual en tres niveles: fisico (mecanismos implicados), funcional (combinaciones de recursos fisicos construidas) y conductual (efectos de las funciones sobre el comportamiento). Aunque se trata de un planteamiento mas complejo, permite una explicacion coherente de la actividad intelectual humana, a la vez que integra en un mismo marco explicativo la inteligencia de sistemas diversos (biologicos o artificiales), marcos culturales distintos e incluso las variaciones intra-individuales. EnglishThe psychological conceptualization of intelligence has traditionally been based on ad hoc definitions serving ideological and social interests. Most of them referred to behaviours, stemmed from cultural and social frameworks, in order to validate the measurement mechanisms. Somehow, those approaches showed a lack of effectiveness when applied to the assessment of cultural or historical differences, slipping in a self culture and present time biasses. The confusion generated by this situation has its origins in the very conceptualization of intelligence, originally root in apprehension and comprehension operations that were lost and substituted by behavioural definitions. When restoring that classical notion, however analysing it from the nowadays neurological and cognitive framework, a three level intellectual functioning scheme arises: Physical level (mechanisms involved), functional level (constructed combinations of physical assets) and behavioural level (comportment influenced by the effects of functions). Even thought it is a more complex formulation, this depiction allows a coherent explanation of human intellectual activity, as well as it accounts for the intelligence of different systems (biological or artificial), cultures and even so intra individual variation.
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 | 0.013 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".