High School Psychology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although institutional recognition of high school psychology is fairly recent, psychology and psychological subject matters have a history dating to at least the 1830s. By the middle of the twentieth century, high school psychology courses existed in nearly all U.S. states, and enrollments grew throughout the second half of the century. However, courses were usually elective, and most teachers lacked degrees in psychology. Studies in the latter half of the twentieth century suggested that high school psychology courses did little to prepare students for college-level psychology, probably because the high school classes often did not include core subject matters of psychological science. However, the 1990s brought several landmark developments for high school psychology, including establishment of Teachers of Psychology in Secondary Schools (TOPPS), a number of university-sponsored institutes providing professional development for teachers, and inauguration of the Advanced Placement (AP) Psychology program. Today, high school psychology teachers enjoy increased recognition within the American Psychological Association (APA), availability of significant teaching resources, and national standards to guide course development. A million students annually take high school psychology, with about a quarter million taking the AP Psychology exam. The course is now recognized as an important first exposure to psychological science.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.118 | 0.023 |
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".