Perceptions and Attitudes of Professional Psychology Trainees Towards Open Science Practices
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
Research suggests that there is a discrepancy between the acceptance and adoption of open science practices (McKiernan et al., 2016). The purpose of this article is to gain the perspective of graduate students in professional psychology (i.e., school, counselling, and clinical psychology) in Canada on their attitudes towards and intentions to implement open science (OS) practices as clinicians; specifically, pre-printing, preregistration, and open data. The present study represents several research questions to determine what the next generation of researchers and clinicians currently value in terms of preprinting, preregistration and data sharing that may help this generation avoid, continue, or reverse the replication crisis that is dominating the strength of supporting evidence for implementation science. The push towards open science has emerged arguably in response to the replication crisis. For clinical practice in psychology, unreplicated research raises concerns about the quality of clinical services delivered, especially to specific subpopulations (e.g., ethnic groups, linguistic minorities, socioeconomic status differences), implementation to a variety of practice contexts, and even questionable research practices and fraud. Interpretation of data obtained will be used to anticipate the future practice of open science based on the prospective clinician's familiarity with, perceptions of, and intentions to implement specific open science practices.
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 | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.019 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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