Global Mobility for Psychologists: The Role of Psychology Organizations in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Other Regions.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Global mobility for psychologists is rapidly improving because of an emerging consensus on recognition standards, the demand for cross-border mobility both internal and external to the profession, and the efforts of membership, credentialing, and regional organizations to promote mobility. In the United States, multiple credentialing organizations promote mobility, primarily through individual endorsement of credentials. The Canadian regulatory boards signed a mutual recognition agreement implementing fast-track mechanisms for licensed psychologists seeking mobility and a competency-based assessment for initial registration. Europe plans to reduce barriers to mobility through mutual recognition of qualifications via a EuroPsy diploma that provides a benchmark for professional psychology education and training. Other regions have not made as much progress with regard to promoting mobility, as many do not yet even regulate the practice of psychology. The authors examine who seeks mobility, which geographic regions promote mobility, and by which mechanisms.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it