Starting and sustaining fruitful collaborations in psychology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Much of psychological science relies on collaboration—from generating new theories and study ideas, to collecting and analyzing data, to writing and sharing results with the broader community. Learning how to collaborate with others is an important skill, yet this process is not often explicitly discussed in academia. Here, five researchers from diverse backgrounds share their experiences and advice on starting and sustaining collaborations. In doing so, they reflect on aspects of both successful (and failed) collaborations with students, colleagues within and outside of psychology, and members of industry and organizational partners beyond academia. Recommendations and challenges of productive collaborations are discussed, along with examples of how collaborative teams can contribute to psychological science, address real‐world issues, and make the process of conducting research more enjoyable and rewarding.
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 | 0.069 | 0.111 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.029 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".