MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

German critical psychology as emancipatory psychology

2001· book-chapter· en· W808939278 on OpenAlexaff
Charles W. Tolman

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2001
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAcademic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubjectivityGermanEpistemologyTheoretical psychologySubject (documents)Critical psychologyIdeologyPhilosophy of psychologyFocus (optics)PsychologySubject matterAsian psychologySociologyPsychoanalysisPhilosophyPolitical sciencePoliticsLawPedagogyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The focus of this chapter is a psychology that had its origins in the student movements of the 1960s and 1970s. When it first acquired a name, it was called “critical-emancipatory psychology,” but in time the label was shortened to “critical psychology,” though it never lost its emancipatory intent. By way of introduction, I shall first say something about its history and the conceptual and ideological issues that motivated it. As we move on, we shall see how, crucial to its emancipatory goals, it formulated the subject matter of psychology as human subjectivity. We shall then look at how psychology itself was reconstructed in order to reflect the nature of its subject matter. There were many catalysts that precipitated the collective actions of a highly politicized postwar student generation in the Germany of the 1960s. These included restrictions by both governments and university officials on free speech. Many students and others complained of a lack of relevance of the material taught at universities. There was a general unrest stemming from the universities' authoritarian approach to the curriculum. In the end, however, the complaint that had by far the greatest impact on subsequent developments concerned the ideological nature of the subject matter being taught, particularly in philosophy and the social sciences. Two debates were particularly crucial to the later development of Critical Psychology in Germany. The first took place in 1967 and had to do with the relevance of psychological or any other kind of scientific knowledge.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.011
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicAcademic and Historical Perspectives in PsychologyFrench-language works237,207