Geropsychology and Psychology in the Last Quarter of the 20th Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents bibliometrical results on the development of gerontopsychology in the last quarter of the 20th century. Analyses are based on the psychology literature documented in PsycINFO, covering mainly publications from the Anglo-American region, and PSYNDEX, covering publications from the German-speaking countries, for the years 1977 to 2000. Results show that both literature bodies on gerontopsychology have steadily grown, in absolute terms, since the beginning of the last quarter of the 20th century. The geropsychology literature in the German-speaking countries has grown faster than the Anglo-American literature. In terms of a relative frequency view, the findings support the notion that geropsychology has found a clear and stable position within psychology as a whole in both research communities, contributing 1-3% to the overall psychology literature and 8-15% (PsycINFO) respectively 30-50% (PSYNDEX) to the overall developmental psychology literature since 1978.
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 | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.048 | 0.085 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".