Bibliographic record
Abstract
of Trinidad and Tobago, there has been little research on psychological issues with respect to therapeutic interventions. To gain more than a superficial knowledge and to extricate cultural factors that might be pertinent in understanding Trinidadians and Tobagonians, I felt that clinical interviews, though necessary, would be an insufficient means of attaining a holistic grasp of the T rinidadian and T obagonian cultural values and beliefs. Therefore, several Caribbean questionnaires were handed out to many Caribbean people from 13 of the CARICOM countries, Trinidad and Tobago being one of them. Thus, this article is the outcome of five years of research based on my own practical, clinical and supervisory experiences on people from the English speaking-Caribbean. A total of873 families of Caribbean heritage who reside in the Caribbean, in New York, in Toronto and in London were either interviewed or seen in treatment. The interviews, each lasted about one hour, focused on such areas as family, education, work values, race, disciplinary measures used, problems with the effectiveness of psychotherapeutic interventions and inter-island differences. These questionnaires (though not standardized) (Gopaul-McNicol, 1993) provided some rudimentary guidelines for understanding Caribbean'families. Many participants, after responding to the questions or to treatment, examined the thoughts and feelings
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".