MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412012897 · doi:10.1080/13854046.2025.2520957

The Minnesota Conference proposed guidelines for education and training in clinical neuropsychology

2025· review· en· W4412012897 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Clinical Neuropsychologist · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling Practices and Supervision
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalSimon Fraser UniversityHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuropsychologyClinical neuropsychologyTraining (meteorology)PsychologyMedical educationMedicinePsychiatryGeographyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The Houston Conference Guidelines (Hannay et al., 1998) provided an initial framework for North American neuropsychology training that served the specialty well for several decades. Subsequent advances in technology, increased diversity of the U.S. and Canadian populations, and the adoption of competency-based training models within Health Service Psychology have created a need to update neuropsychology training guidelines. Therefore, in 2022, the Minnesota Conference to Update Education and Training Guidelines in Clinical Neuropsychology began a two-year drafting process leading to the currently proposed update. METHOD: A Steering Committee worked with content experts, consultants, and delegates representing North American neuropsychological organizations and specialists. The final version of the guidelines was developed after reviewing neuropsychological training literature, gathering feedback from specialists, and making iterative revisions of earlier drafts to reach consensus. CONCLUSION: The resulting "Minnesota Guidelines" include five foundational (Neuroscience and Brain Behavior Relationships; Integration of Science and Practice; Ethics, Standards, Laws, and Policies; Diversity; and Professional Relationships) and eight functional (Assessment; Intervention; Interdisciplinary Systems and Consultation; Research and Scholarship; Technology and Innovation; Teaching, Supervision, and Mentoring; Health and Professional Advocacy; and Administration, Management, and Business) areas of competency required for entry level specialty practice. While consensus was not achieved, a majority of voting delegates recommended the Guidelines for adoption and the Guidelines have been endorsed by six neuropsychology education and board certification organizations. The American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology has not endorsed the Minnesota Guidelines and will not make an endorsement decision until three months after online publication.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.517
GPT teacher head0.609
Teacher spread0.092 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it