Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent cross-cultural studies of child development reveal that child rearing, while strikingly culturally variable, is everywhere designed to make the child's experience of important lessons constant, to link those lessons to emotional arousal, and to connect them to evaluations of the child's goodness and badness. These claims are illustrated from research on Americans, Chinese, Germans, Gusii (Kenya), Ifaluk (Micronesia), and Inuit (Baffin Island). These three universal features of child rearing accomplish what is a highly specialized task. Constancy of experience alters synaptic connections to grant the pattern of their firing especially high-resolution, so that the lessons to be learned are unmistakable ones. Accompanied by emotional arousal, these lessons are especially motivating and unforgettable. Brought home with evaluations of the learner's goodness and badness, these lessons are even more motivating and unforgettable. Children get the point of the lesson, enact it once they get it, and remember to enact it on subsequent occasions. Cultural models of child rearing, thus, exploit the neural capacities of the children so reared, to achieve a result, human adulthood, that could not be accomplished by the human brain alone. From exposure to these practices result distinctive cultural selves. These selves are partly implicit, based on the largely unmarked practices designed to make children's experience of important lessons constant and these lessons arousing, and partly explicit, based on the labeling and other marking that connects these lessons to evaluations of children's goodness and badness. The conscious, self-reflective self that emerges from such explicit evaluation lays the basis for identity-everywhere profoundly culturally shaped, infused with powerful evaluative meanings, and itself highly motivating.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".