MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988350207 · doi:10.1037/a0023176

Forensic psychology opportunities in Canadian graduate programs: An update of Simourd and Wormith's (1995) survey.

2011· article· en· W1988350207 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
L. Maaike Helmus, Kelly M. Babchishin, Joseph A. Camilleri, Mark E. Olver

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAcademic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForensic psychologyPsychologyApplied psychologyMedical educationEngineering ethicsCriminology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forensic psychology has gained momentum in North America in recent decades, and Canadian psychologists have made considerable contributions to the field. Strong student interest and a high demand for professionals, however, have not been sufficiently matched with the availability of formal forensic psychology graduate training, nor with sufficient scholarly discussion of this issue. The purpose of the current study was to update Simourd and Wormith's (1995) survey of forensic psychology training available in Canadian psychology graduate programs. Of the 39 universities with psychology graduate programs, 36 (92%) responded to the survey. Twenty-four universities (67%) offered some forensic opportunities for students, although was considerable variability in the number of courses, students, and faculty members in the forensic psychology programs. Since Simourd and Wormith's (1995) survey, forensic training is available at 10 new universities. Of the 14 programs with forensic psychology content in 1995 and in the current study, however, more than half of them reported a decrease in the number of faculty and students working with forensic issues. Considering the continued demand for trained forensic psychologists in applied settings, further attention to the availability of both education and training in forensic psychology is therefore still needed. Keywords: forensic psychology, criminal justice psychology, graduate training, education Although it is a recent field, forensic psychology has undergone enormous growth in recent decades (Bersoff, GoodmanDelahunty, Glisso, Hans, Poythress, & Roesch, 1997; Glisso, Sales, & Bayless, 1982; Ogloff, 2000; Poythress, 1979; Watkins, 1992). In 1970 were no formal graduate degree programs in this area (Ogloff, 2000), but now it is a legitimate and wellrecognised field of psychology (Porter, 2004; Pozzulo, Bennell, & Forth, 2006). The growth of the field can be measured by marked increases in specialized textbooks (e.g., Andrews & Bont?, 2006; Bartol & Bartol, 201 1; Pozzulo et al., 2006), journals (e.g., Criminal Justice and Behaviour, Law and Human Behaviour, etc.), professional associations (e.g., the American Psychology-Law Society; the Criminal Justice Section of the Canadian Psychological Association), as well as introductory psychology textbooks that incorporate criminal justice issues (Ogloff, 2000). Before proceeding, some introductory comments on terminology are in order. Several terms (e.g., correctional psychology, criminal justice psychology, legal psychology, criminal forensic psychology) with varying definitions have been applied to this field. We use a relatively broad definition of forensic psychology, which includes any psychological research or practice that is related to criminal behaviour. Similar to Simourd and Wormith's (1995) definition, it includes the application of psychology to the law or legal systems (e.g., assessments, eyewitness testimony, jury selection and decision-making, offender treatment) or within various criminal justice agencies (e.g., correctional facilities, courts, forensic hospitals, law enforcement, probation). Additionally, forensic psychology also includes basic psychological research on the causes of crime (e.g., evolutionary forensic psychology; Duntley & Shackelford, 2008). Although some definitions of forensic psychology have been restricted to clinical work (e.g., Committee on the Revision of the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology, 2010), ours includes both clinical and nonclinical activities. James Ogloff (2000) has said that there is absolutely no doubt that the future of legal psychology, whatever it holds, belongs to the students in training and those yet to come (p. 469). What does the future hold for forensic psychology? Judging by student interest, the future should be promising. Likely related to the enormous popularity of TV shows (e.g., Criminal Minds, Crime Scene Investigation) and movies (e. …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.188

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.015
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.342
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.041 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainIncentives
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations18
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienneSame topicAcademic and Historical Perspectives in PsychologyFrench-language works237,207