International Capacity Building in Psychological Science: Reflections on Student Involvement and Endeavors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Internationalization in psychology provides unique opportunities for students worldwide and promises to build a more inclusive, representative, and culturally sensitive discipline. Far from passive recipients of the internationalization process, students are actively involved in promoting opportunities for cross-cultural collaborations, international learning, and the creation of international networks. This paper reviews opportunities for student involvement in internationalization related efforts in psychology. Students' roles within international and regional psychology organizations are explored to highlight the unique contributions and opportunities afforded by more independent and fully student-led organizations and initiatives. This paper discusses the barriers to establishing student-led organizations and to student involvement in international endeavors, including power imbalances, language barriers, and disparities in students' ability to access financial resources and mentorship depending on their geographical location. Recommendations are offered, to both students and professional members, to foster student contributions to the internationalization of psychology and support the creation of sustainable student-led international organizations.
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 | 0.028 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| 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".