Psychological Research and Public Policy: Bridging the Gap
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Opportunities for communicating psychological findings beyond the discipline are limited and often under‐rewarded. In this article, we discuss reasons why psychological research often fails to be communicated beyond the discipline, and we provide suggestions for what needs to be changed in order to bridge this gap. Specifically, we identify barriers to communicating beyond the discipline, and we note that more effectively and broadly disseminating knowledge requires a different style than conveying information within the profession. We further illustrate how psychology offers unique perspectives and information that are of considerable value to lay audiences and policy makers. We conclude by articulating the potential benefits for society and psychology of efforts and venues whose explicit intention is to understand social problems and inform policy through the psychological study of social issues.
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 | 0.196 | 0.229 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.090 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.044 | 0.080 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.034 |
| Research integrity | 0.030 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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.
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".