The global development of community psychology as reflected in the <i>American Journal of Community Psychology</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This commentary presents a virtual special issue on the global growth of community psychology (CP), particularly, but not exclusively, as reflected in the American Journal of Community Psychology (AJCP). CP exists in at least 50 countries all over the world, in many of those for over 25 years. Yet, aside from several early Israeli articles, AJCP rarely published work from or about countries outside the US and Canada until the early 2000s, when the number of international articles began to rise sharply. The focus of CP developed differently in different continents. CP in Australia and New Zealand initially followed North America's emphasis on improving social service systems, but has since focused more on environmental and indigenous cultural and decolonial issues that are as salient in those countries as in North America, but have drawn much more attention. CP came later to most of Asia, where it also tended to follow the North American path, but starting in Japan, India, and Hong Kong and now in China and elsewhere, it is establishing its own way. The other two global hotspots for CP for over 40 years have been Europe and Latin America. The level and focus of CP in Europe varies in each country, with some focused on applied developmental psychology and/or community services and others advancing critical and liberation psychology. CP in Latin America evolved from social psychology, but like CP in Sub-Saharan Africa, is also more explicitly political due to a history of political oppression, social activism, and the limitations of individualistic psychology to focus on social change, overcoming poverty, and interventions by (not just for) community members. Despite those differences, CP literature over the past 23 years suggests an increasingly common interest in social justice, multinational collaborations, and decoloniality. There is still a need for more truly (bidirectional) cross-cultural, comparative work for mutual learning, sharing of ideas, methods, and intervention practices, and for CP to develop in countries and communities throughout the globe where it could have the greatest impact.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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 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".