Investigaciones en\npsicología clínica basadas en la evidencia en Chile y Argentina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"Se realiza una revisión bibliométrica de las investigaciones basadas en la evidencia enPsicología Clínica publicadas en tres revistas chilenas, Terapia Psicológica, Revista Chilena dePsicología y Psykhe y tres argentinas, Interdisciplinaria, Revista Argentina de Clínica Psicológicae Investigaciones en Psicología, entre 1990-2002 hasta 2004-2005 (en función de lasrevistas). Los resultados se evaluaron en función de frecuencia de artículos, orientación y criteriosde eficacia para los tratamientos con apoyo empírico (TAEs) establecidos por Chambles &Hollond (1998) y por Seligman (1995). Se hallan escasas publicaciones sobre investigacionesempíricas en psicología clínica en ambos países. Además la mayoría de ellas coinciden con latendencia internacional relacionada con la primacía del enfoque cognitivo-conductual, aunqueninguna reúne todos los requisitos de eficacia establecidos por Chambles & Hollond (1998) ySeligman (1995). Sin embargo, algunos datos más recientes sugieren un aumento incipiente deinvestigaciones clínicas en ambos países, aunque más acentuado en Chile"
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 | 0.013 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.037 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".