Two lines of development of cultural-historical theory: “revisionist revolution” vs. “height psychology”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
В последние десять лет независимый исследователь из Канады А. Ясницкий (Anton Yasnitsky) деятельно проводит «ревизионистскую революцию» в исследованиях Выготского, привлекая к своему проекту молодых исследователей. В статье проводится критический анализ «культурно-исторической гештальтпсихологии» Ясницкого. Альтернативная линия развития связана с проектом «вершинной / акмеистической психологии», который Выготский наметил в записных книжках в последние годы жизни. Ее предназначение состоит в том, чтобы помочь человеку овладеть своими аффектами при помощи понятий. Вершинная психология представляет собой «движение к свободе — к жизни по руководству разума» (Выготский). Настоящая статья представляет собой расширенную версию работы, опубликованной ранее на английском языке: Maidansky A. D. The “Revisionist Revolution” and Future Prospects of Vygotskian Studies. DOI: 10.17759/chp.2021170202 // Cultural-Historical Psychology. 2021; 17( 2): 190–198. Over the past ten years, an independent researcher from Canada, Anton Yasnitsky, has been actively pursuing a “revisionist revolution” in Vygotsky studies, involving young researchers in his project. The article provides a critical analysis of Yasnitsky’s “Cultural-Historical Gestalt Psychology”. The alternative line of development is related to the project of “height / acmeist psychology”, which Vygotsky outlined in his notebooks in the last years of his life. Its purpose is to help humans master their affects by means of concepts. Height psychology realizes “the motion toward freedom – toward a life guided by reason” (Vygotsky). This article is an expanded version of a work previously published in English: Maidansky A.D. The “Revisionist Revolution” and Future Prospects of Vygotskian Studies. DOI: 10.17759/chp.2021170202. Cultural-Historical Psychology. 2021; 17( 2): 23–28.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".