MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040407822 · doi:10.1177/0829573511418484

Teaching Psychological Report Writing

2011· article· en· W2040407822 on OpenAlex
Judith Wiener, Laurie Costaris

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of School Psychology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational and Psychological Assessments
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Christian StudiesUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyContext (archaeology)Writing processProcess (computing)LiteracyMathematics educationSet (abstract data type)Intervention (counseling)PedagogyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this article is to discuss the process of teaching graduate students in school psychology to write psychological reports that teachers and parents find readable and that guide intervention. The consensus from studies across four decades of research is that effective psychological reports connect to the client’s context; have clear links between the referral questions and the answers to these questions; have integrated interpretations; address client strengths and problem areas; have specific, concrete, and feasible recommendations; and are adapted to the language and literacy level of the reader. The Hayes and Flower model of the writing process is the conceptual framework used to describe the process of teaching report writing. This involves a constructivist approach to supervision and the use of specific strategies that may be effective in teaching graduate students to formulate the case, adapt their writing to the language and literacy level of the reader, set goals, and generate and organize the text.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.429
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.001

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 head0.191
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.259 · 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