“A Game We All Play”: Identity, Epistemology, and Transformation in Undergraduate Psychology Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through the transformations of their beliefs and identities, students of a scientific discipline reflect its basic epistemological commitments. Despite its radical disciplinary change following the replication crisis, reflexive pedagogical study is rare in the psychological literature. This study aims to capture undergraduate psychology students’ changing commitments within their field. Interviews of first-year and fourth-year psychology students at the University of Toronto were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results show that the fourth-years, though more conversant with their field’s values, were mostly dissatisfied with their ethical and epistemological validity. Fourth-years unanimously reported feelings of alienation and disenfranchisement due to their practical powerlessness to address theoretical issues of which they were critically aware. The results suggest a broad dissolution of confidence in psychology’s knowledge justification, as well as a need for pedagogical change. Opening space in the curriculum and lab culture for critical challenge might allay alienation and resignation expressed by students.
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".