Bibliographic record
Abstract
This volume is entitled Constructions of Remembering and Metacognition. That title is intended to reflect our belief that progress in understanding the human mind does not consist of discovery, but is rather an act of invention. As demonstrated by so many of the essays in this volume, people’s awareness of their world is constructed, not apprehended: As Thomas Hobbes (1651/1904) explained more than three hundred years ago, we experience our reactions to the world, not the world itself. In consequence, our knowledge of the world is inevitably indirect, coloured, and contaminated by the inferential and attributive processes through which it is created. In addition to Hobbes, we owe this framework for understanding human psychology to a number of thinkers across the past few centuries, such as Immanual Kant ( Critique of Pure Reason , 1781/1932), Jeremy Bentham ( Theory of Fictions , Bentham & Ogden, 1814/1932), Hans Vaihinger ( Philosophy of As If , 1911/1924), Alfred Adler (1927), and Sir Frederick Bartlett (1932). This constructive nature of mind applies just as much to the act of theorizing about mental functions as to any other activity. In our study of the human mind, we have only one tool: the human mind. Thus our job as cognitive psychologists is to be storytellers, crafting imaginative fictions about what mind might be like if we were ever able to examine it directly. Of course, some stories are better than others.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.559 | 0.289 |
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".