以实质心理学为基础的评估：认知诊断

评价除了了解学习者的学习情况外,同时还应该提供学习者学习状况的诊断信息,以利于教学与学习。评价应该以认知心理学对学习过程的研究,作为编制测验的实质理论依据,进行认知诊断评估。本文针对认知诊断的心理学基础：知识的习得、知识诱发、知识表征、知识结构等进行梳理,以便测验开发者对认知诊断评估有更清晰的认识。     

国内元认知的相关研究及其展望

元认知这一概念是由美国发展心理学家弗莱维尔(Flavell)在1976年正式提出来的。至今,学者们对其进行了广泛深入的研究,无论是在理论还是实证方面都取得了丰硕的成果。文章首先对元认知(metacognition)的概念作了阐述,接着陈述了当前关于元认知的结构比较认可的两分法以及三分法,并提出了关于元认知结构的看法。然后对目前国内元认知的相关研究做一综述,最后文章在分析过去研究所存在问题的基础上提出了对元认知研究的展望。     

Discrepancy between human resource research and practice: Comparison of industrial/organisational psychologists and human resource practitioners' beliefs

There is a large and growing body of research to show that human resource (HR) practices affect individual performance, organisational productivity and organisational performance. Academic findings about effective HR practices, however, have not readily been adopted by practitioners. A variety of theoretical and practical explanations have been advanced about the research–practice gap. Research by Rynes, Colbert, and Brown (2002) suggested that the research–practice gap is due to a lack of knowledge, but the extent to which these findings apply to the Australian context is unknown. The sample consisted of 102 industrial/organisational (I/O) psychologists and 89 HR practitioners. The main aim of the present study was to replicate and extend the work of Rynes et al. by examining and comparing the knowledge of I/O psychologists and HR practitioners. It was found that overall I/O psychologists were better informed about HR research than HR practitioners; in particular, they were more knowledgeable about management practices and recruitment and selection. In both groups, of the five content areas examined (Management Practices; General Employment Practices; Training and Development; Recruitment and Selection; and Compensation and Benefits), the greatest gaps were in Recruitment and Selection.     

Moral Expertise and the Credentials Problem

Philosophers have harbored doubts about the possibility of moral expertise since Plato. I argue that irrespective of whether moral experts exist, identifying who those experts are is insurmountable because of the credentials problem: Moral experts have no need to seek out others’ moral expertise, but moral non-experts lack sufficient knowledge to determine whether the advice provided by a putative moral expert in response to complex moral situations is correct and hence whether an individual is a bone fide expert. Traditional accounts of moral expertise require that moral experts give reliably correct moral advice supported by adequate justification, an account which, I argue, is too lean in allowing for the possibility of a moral expert who is motivationally indifferent to her own moral judgments and advice. Yet even if the proposition that a moral expert is an individual who provides reliably correct moral advice supported by adequate justification and is necessarily motivated by that advice exhausts the necessary and sufficient conditions for moral expertise, this proposition cannot function as an applicable criterion for non-experts to use in appraising would-be experts’ claims to expertise. The credentials problem thus remains unanswered.

QUESTIONING SCIENTIFIC FAITH IN THE LATE NINETEENTH CENTURY

The late nineteenth century was not only a time in which religious faith was questioned in light of increasing claims of natural science. It is more accurate to see the familiar Victorian crisis of faith as but one aspect of a larger historical phenomenon, one in which the methods of both religion and science came under scrutiny. Among several examinations of the status of scientific knowledge in the waning decades of the century, the treatment of the subject by the German theologian Wilhelm Herrmann and philosopher Hans Vaihinger rejected its objective nature and denied that either scientists or theologians had access to the truth of nature. Although this stance regarding the nature of science, religion, and their relationship was limited to intellectuals in German society at the time, it foreshadowed developments in our own day in which the traditional search for truth has been problematized.     

基于开放医疗大数据的人工智能研究

医疗人工智能（artificial intelligence, AI）的发展离不开大数据的汇聚与标注,同时也引发了医疗大数据及其标注标准如何统一的问题。从AI发展对医疗大数据需求出发,指出建立医疗大数据统一标准的重要性与必要性,分析当前医疗AI技术的开发过程缺乏数据统一标准和临床共识,提出“以开放换取共识”的医疗大数据平台方案——素问系统,实现“算法工程师开发技术—临床医生编辑知识—伦理专家监控伦理”的一体化AI生产流程。最后,以素问系统中第一个开源项目——医学知识图谱,作为大数据抽取标准知识的案例,解析了如何以开放换取共识,让AI技术专家与临床专家共同打造可落地的医疗AI技术。

     

先前知识经验对远距离水平映射规则内隐学习的限制

先前研究发现远距离规则能够被内隐地习得和迁移,表明内隐学习获得的知识是底层的抽象规则,那么这一抽象规则的习得和迁移是否会受到先前知识经验的限制?研究采用汉语声调的远距离水平映射规则为材料,通过创设不符合平仄知识经验的任意声调水平映射规则,在控制组块和重复结构等表面特征的条件下,探讨先前知识经验是否限制了远距离水平映射规则的内隐学习和迁移。结果发现相对于符合平仄知识经验的汉语声调水平映射规则,被试不能够内隐地习得和迁移任意声调的水平映射规则,表明先前知识经验在远距离水平映射规则内隐学习过程中发挥着重要作用。     

利他动机对中小学教师知识共享的影响——组织认同和组织支持感的调节作用

为探讨利他动机、组织认同和组织支持感对知识共享的影响,选取北京市不同学区的20所中小学校的教师进行问卷调查,使用利他行为问卷、组织认同问卷、组织支持感问卷和知识共享问卷获得有效数据1342份。结果发现：（1）中小学教师的利他动机对其知识共享具有显著的正向预测作用;（2）组织认同在中小学教师利他动机与知识共享之间起到调节作用;（3）组织支持感对中小学教师利他动机与组织认同对知识共享的交互效应具有高阶调节作用。本研究检验了个体因素（利他动机）与组织因素（组织认同、组织支持感）变量对知识共享的共同作用,对提升中小学教师知识共享具有一定的指导作用。     

基于CiteSpace近10年中医药科技伦理研究知识图谱分析

追踪和探索近10年中医药科技伦理研究的趋势与热点。检索中国知网数据库近10年相关文献,应用CiteSpace 6.1.R6软件分别对纳入的238篇文献的作者、机构、关键词绘制知识图谱并进行分析。从2013年1月1日—2023年1月1日,中医药科技伦理领域发文量总体呈波动性上升趋势。频数最多的5个关键词为伦理审查、中医药、临床研究、中医、伦理。研究显示中医药研究伦理审查、中医药现代化面临的伦理问题、中医学理论在伦理领域的新发展、中国传统医德研究是该领域关注的重点。大医精诚的相关研究可能成为未来研究方向。

     

The continuing need for disinterested research

For scientific knowledge to be trustworthy, it needs to be dissociated from material interests. Disinterested research also performs other important non-instrumental roles. In particular, academic science has traditionally provided society with reliable, imaginative public knowledge and independent, self-critical expertise. But this type of science is not compatible with the practice of instrumental research, which is typically proprietary, prosaic, pragmatic and partisan. With ever-increasing dependence on commercial or state funding, all modes of knowledge production are merging into a new, ‘post-academic’ research culture which is dominated by utilitarian goals. Growing concern about conflicts of interest is thus a symptom of deep-seated malaise in science and medicine. An expanded version of this paper was presented at an International Conference on “Conflict of Interest and its Significance in Science and Medicine” held in Warsaw, Poland on 5–6 April, 2002.