The Trend toward more Attractive and Informative Titles: <i>American Psychologist</i> 1946–2010
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Titles of journal articles serve to attract attention and inform potential readers. All titles from 65 volumes of American Psychologist (1946-2010, N = 12,313 titles) were studied in terms of their emotionality, style, and contents. Several trends noted for titles in different kinds of journals from psychology and other disciplines were present in American Psychologist (increasing title length, increasing use of punctuation marks, increasing employment of words with pleasant and arousing connotations, variations in the frequency of different content words). Longer titles allow authors to specify more information, and emotionally upbeat titles are more likely to attract reader attention. In an unexpected quadratic trend, titles became more abstract and the number of titles increased until about 1985, after which the trend was reversed and titles became more concrete as their numbers decreased. Predictors of this trend include societal variables and the journal's editorial policies.
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 | 0.006 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.006 |
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".