Conceptual Commitments of Constructivism in an Age when Truth Matters
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
The purpose of this special issue is to critically examine the constructivist moorings of contemporary developmental theory and practice, including the practice of research methods. This introduction to the special issue is intended to foreshadow the papers presented here by charting the terrain of several conceptual commitments that we consider paradigmatic cornerstones to constructivist approaches. Although constructivism has deep roots across disciplines in the sciences and humanities, generating a wealth of scholarship focused on its various assumptions and theoretical principles, here we target three: the active subject, normativity, and historicity. These principles are theoretically axiomatic of constructivist approaches, strongly interconnected, and highly relevant to some of the most pressing debates and challenges affecting contemporary science and society, not the least because they question fundamental notions that we often take for granted – notions as vital as the meanings of truth, fact, and objectivity. After presenting a primer on the meaning and significance of these three principles, we review their status as critical signposts for the work of scholars contributing to this special issue.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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