MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966142025 · doi:10.1002/jclp.20155

Can a matrix make a training model?: “No.” let's not throw out the Boulder model

2005· letter· en· W1966142025 on OpenAlexaff
Donald Meichenbaum

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Psychology · 2005
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMental Health and Psychiatry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMatrix modelTraining (meteorology)Graduate studentsTRACE (psycholinguistics)Medical educationField (mathematics)Mental healthMatrix (chemical analysis)Applied psychologyMental modelPsychotherapistCognitive sciencePedagogyMedicineMathematicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In response to the call by C.R. Snyder and T.R. Elliott (this issue, pp. 1033-1054) for a new clinical training program, I propose the need to keep the Boulder model. I trace my involvement with the Boulder model from my clinical graduate training through my 30 years as a professor. One of the major tasks of clinical training is to teach graduate students to think in a critical rigorous fashion in order to avoid the fads in the mental health field.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.450
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.065 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical PsychologySame topicMental Health and PsychiatryFrench-language works237,207