Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Governed by Affect offers a new history of psychology’s contradictory and contested public life in the United States and beyond since World War II, with a special emphasis on a series of transformations that have occurred since the 1970s. For both policymakers and ordinary people, the discipline of psychology has come to furnish a seemingly inexhaustible array of tools and concepts for making individuals healthier, wealthier, and happier. At the heart of this psychologized neo-liberalism is the notion that attention or the will exists as a scarce resource in a distracted and tempting world. Breaking with the austere and deliberative rationality of Cold War cognitive science, the new psychology depicts individuals as beholden to their unbridled passions and wants. At the same time of this unprecedented cultural influence, psychologists’ expertise came under greater scrutiny than ever before, with the discipline finding itself mired in a pair of moral and epistemological crises which threaten to overturn the field’s self-image as an objective science and a helping profession. The book traces a series of key transformations: a switch from psychology identifying as a social science to a health science; the greater engagement of psychological scientists in the realms of self-help and public policy; and the overshadowing of cognitive science by theories of affect. These three transformations—in psychology’s political economy, in its public engagement, and in its theories of the self—constitute distinct but interconnected areas of analysis for constructing a new history of the psychological society. Such a perspective offers a critical genealogy of the stakes and public face of psychology at a time when the provision of mental health services and the use of behavioral interventions to improve both personal and social well-being are acute matters of concern.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.004 |
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".