Sentencing social psychology: Scientific deviance and the diffusion of statistical rules
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article investigates the inquiries and sanctions that followed accusations of fraud directed toward Dutch social psychologist Diederik Stapel in the early 2010s. Relying on the public reports published by the investigative committees, as well as on interviews conducted with committee members and Stapel’s former students and collaborators, we propose to analyze how this case facilitated the diffusion, in social psychology, of statistical rules that were hitherto unenforced in this field. The Stapel case thus illustrates the regulative role played by statistics in the contemporary scientific field while also demonstrating the appeal of legal modes of dealing with misconduct when it comes to the treatment of scientific deviance. More generally, this article shows how the study of scientific deviance can serve to bring to light symbolic hierarchies that are habitually kept tacit, thus serving as a magnifying glass for the scientific field’s inner processes.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it