The Development of Social Media Guidelines for Psychologists and for Regulatory Use
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
The Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards, the national organization representing psychology regulatory/licensing boards in Canada and the USA, recently developed social media guidelines that are being recommended for use by its member boards. The purposes of the guidelines were to provide guidance to psychology regulatory boards both countries in identifying and communicating what are considered appropriate and inappropriate uses of social media and to promote consistency and clarity about this across jurisdictions. The process involved reviewing the professional literature, relevant guidelines, standards, current laws, and regulations. The guidelines developed include guidelines about confidentiality, informed consent, risk management, competence, multiple relationships, professional conduct, security of information, personal use of social media, and regulatory board use of social media. Major challenges and limitations in accomplishing this task are identified and discussed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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