MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046481215 · doi:10.1037/0033-3204.44.3.274

To a large extent, the field got it wrong: New learnings from a new look at an old classic.

2007· article· en· W2046481215 on OpenAlexaff
Alvin R. Mahrer

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychotherapy · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsycINFOPsychologyField (mathematics)Table (database)PsychoanalysisMEDLINELawPolitical scienceDatabaseComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On the basis of a new look at Rogers' classic 1957 article (see record 2007-14639-002), the case is that the field missed and misinterpreted the main points. In other words, the field got it wrong. The new look puts five new learnings on the table and considers some of the implications of having consistently got it wrong for half a century or so. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved).

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.038
Scholarly communication0.0160.033
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0070.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.359 · 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
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychotherapySame topicPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207