Two steps forward and one step backward: The law and psychology movement(s) in the 20th century.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The field of law and psychology has existed, in some form or another, for almost 100 years. The article presents a brief overview of law and psychology in the last century and shows that there actually have been two movements--one in the first third, and the other in the latter third, of the century. Given these movements, why has the law and psychology movement had so little impact on the law (and, for that matter, on psychology)? Failure to ponder--and answer--this question, may result in the demise of the movement. Given the power of law over individuals and societies, though, the application of psychology to the law is an important and useful way to assess the validity of laws and to ensure that psychological research can influence the law. This paper discusses 12 reasons that may have contributed to the relative failure of the law and psychology movement thus far. In presenting each of the reasons, and considering factors that have led to some successes in the field, the paper discusses methods and strategies that may help ensure the continued vitality and strength of the field of legal psychology.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".