Psychology through international congresses: Differences between regions, countries, and congresses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A published database of presentations from the seven most recent International Congresses of Applied Psychology (ICAPs) was compared to a similar but unpublished database (Adair, Anguas-Plata, Unik, & Radons, 2009) on the International Congresses of Psychology (ICPs) for the years 1996-2004. Analyses revealed phenomena characteristic of attendance at both international congresses: Participation rates spike dramatically for host countries; less dramatic regional surges in participation occur when the congress is held in a neighbouring country. Psychologists from 117 different countries participated in the seven recent congresses (ICAP and ICP) from 1994 to 2006. Overall ICP was double the size of ICAP, and represented a larger set of countries at each of its congresses. Regardless of location, most participants at both congresses came from the same 11 economically advantaged and seven majority-world countries. Congress presentations are dispersed across a much larger number of countries than are journal publications. The USA, for example, had modest 14.4% (ICAP) and 11.6% (ICP) presentation rates, much smaller than its majority share of publications (Adair, 2009 ). By contrast, the USA had the greater share of invited addresses at both ICAP (33.7%) and ICP (28.9%) congresses. Nonetheless, the majority-world countries contributing to both ICAP and ICP are clearly indicative of where the discipline is gaining strength and importance to international psychology. The emergence of Iran as a new leading national contributor to the two most recent international congresses, and the rise in the proportion of presentations by majority-world psychologists at ICAPs from only about one in five to more than one of every three presentations in recent congresses are findings consistent with Zakaria's (2008) analysis of changes taking place in the world. Within international congresses, certainly, the "rise of the rest" is changing the face of international psychology.
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 | 0.010 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".