Beyond Indigenization: International Dissemination of Research by Majority-World Psychologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analyses of the affiliations of authors of articles published in targeted samples of North American and international journals revealed trends toward increasing international publication by psychologists from countries outside the U.S., i.e., from countries in the rest of the world (ROW). Relatively few of these ROW publications came from psychologists from developing countries. Because developing countries are most numerous and represent the majority of the people in the world, their contribution to the world of psychology is important. Following a summary presentation of data for each journal for psychologists from East Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, and South Asia (primarily India), the factors differentially deterring or promoting international publication within each region are discussed.1 Consideration of the extent to which research contributions are differentially influenced by the national economy, national language, and the state of discipline development raise questions and provide insights into the international dissemination of majority-world 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.
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 | 0.057 | 0.174 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".