MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070435865 · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.60.9.959

Graduate Study in Psychology: 1971-2004.

2005· article· en· W2070435865 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John C. Norcross, Jessica Kohout, Marlene Wicherski

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Psychologist · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicOccupational and Professional Licensing Regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGraduate studentsPsychologyPoint (geometry)Medical educationApplied psychologyPedagogyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article traces the evolution of graduate study in psychology in the United States and Canada during the past 3 decades. The authors summarize the 2003-2004 characteristics of graduate programs and departments in psychology and compare these data to those obtained in 1970-1971, 1979-1980, and 1992-1993. The most recent data were obtained from the 2005 edition of Graduate Study in Psychology and were based on 495 institutions, 601 departments, and 1,970 graduate programs. Information is presented for both entire departments (e.g., faculty characteristics, student profiles, admission criteria, Graduate Record Examination and grade point averages, tuition costs, financial assistance) and individual graduate programs (e.g., areas of study, number of applicants, acceptance rates, enrollment statistics, retention rates). Particular attention is devoted to the emergence of PsyD programs in professional psychology, the ascendancy of neuroscience programs in academic psychology, and the steady rise in acceptance rates across programs over the past 33 years.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.999
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.004

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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.243 · 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
DomainIncentives
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

Citations92
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican PsychologistSame topicOccupational and Professional Licensing RegulationFrench-language works237,207