Psychologists’ response to crises: International perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tragically, for many schools, the possibility of a crisis such as a natural disaster, extreme violence or a potentially traumatising threat has become a reality. Specialist input from a local psychology service is often sought at such a time. To help one service within the United Kingdom (UK) learn from the experience of other psychologists a survey was constructed and subsequently completed by 277 psychologists from around the world including Australia, Canada, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Scandinavia, Slovakia, Switzerland, Turkey, UK, and USA. The survey provides insight into the experience of psychologists in responding to crises, for example, the nature of the crises, the extent of collaboration with others, the level of training undertaken, and the level of confidence psychologists have in this area of work. Of particular interest are the models, resources, and theories that psychologists have used and the advice that they have found helpful. A number of international comparisons are made. The survey findings suggest that collaboration is seen as highly important to effective practice. Attention is also drawn to the important work that the International Crisis Response Network of the International School Psychology Association (ISPA) is undertaking in promoting an integrated model of practice.
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 | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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.
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".