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 1960s and 1970s saw the overt "politicization" of the American Psychological Association as an organization. Politics in this context carried a dual meaning referring to both political lobbying to promote the interests of psychology as a health profession and grassroots political action to advance social justice causes. In the years between the passage of the Community Mental Health Act (1963) and the Vail Conference on levels and patterns of professional training in psychology (1973), these two forms of politics were intertwined. The first significant political mobilization of professional psychologists in the postwar era occurred over the staffing of community mental health centers in the mid-1960s. These creations of the Great Society social welfare programs provided a platform for pursuing bold experiments in structural interventions to improve the lives and mental health of minoritized Americans and came to serve as hubs for the Black psychology movement of the early 1970s. This alternative model for the profession received careful consideration at the Vail Conference. However, a different relationship between politics and the profession crystalized by 1980. The politics of professionalism in psychology took the form lobby on behalf of practitioners working independent practices to receive reimbursement from third-party health insurance providers. This shift in the political economy of mental health has obscured this earlier, communitarian moment in American psychology. The racial economy of psychology's professionalization was structural, but not inevitable. It resulted from a series of historical choices. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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