Paul Lazarsfeld, Theodor W. Adorno och den kritiska teorins umgänge med positivistisk socialpsykologi, 1938–2022
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[Paul Lazarsfeld, Theodor W. Adorno and Critical Theory’s engagement with positivist social psychology, 1938–2022] Fairly soon after The Authoritarian Personality was published in 1950, positive reviews were mixed with furious attacks, not least linked to Cold War anti-communist sentiment in the United States. However, some of the criticism also dealt with important and complex methodological issues. In the long run, it turned out that the composite method, with attitude surveys, interviews and psychological tests, used in The Authoritarian Personality did not gain many followers, while the book’s so-called F-scale came to be used in a very large number of studies on various subjects and still is widely used in developed forms. Mats Deland and Paul Fuehrer’s article follows the methodological development starting from a meeting between Paul Lazarsfeld and Theodor W. Adorno in the late 1930s, when the theoretical differences between the positivism and critical theory that together formed the basis of The Authoritarian Personality first were made clear, and ending in the 21st century’s modern attitude surveys carried out in Leipzig and Bielefeld. Publication history: Published original. (Published 23 November 2023) Citation: Deland, Mats & Paul Fuehrer (2023) “Paul Lazarsfeld, Theodor W. Adorno och den kritiska teorins umgänge med positivistisk socialpsykologi, 1938–2022”, in Den auktoritära personligheten. Det vita fältet IV , special issue of Arkiv. Tidskrift för samhällsanalys , issue 16, pp. 223–262. https://doi.org/10.13068/2000-6217.16.6
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".