Promoting the internationalization of evidence‐based practice: Benchmarking as a strategy to evaluate culturally transported psychological treatments.
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
In addition to the growing evidence-based practice movement in psychology, psychological \ntreatments are undergoing increasing adaptation and transportation to other countries and cultures around the world, prompting the need to evaluate treatments in these diverse settings. This article proposes the “benchmarking” strategy as a valuable approach to evaluate the effectiveness of culturally adapted and/or transported treatments and to promote the internationalization of evidence-based practice. We first describe the benchmarking concept in clinical research, followed by considerations for the cultural adaptation and transportation of psychological treatments. We then explain how the benchmarking strategy may be used to validate culturally transported and adapted psychological treatments. The article concludes with a discussion of considerations, limitations, and challenges for conducting cross-cultural benchmarking research.
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 | 0.030 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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