MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Theoretical Orientation Profile Scale—Revised: A Validation Study

2003· article· en· W74189053 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueMeasurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling Practices and Supervision
Canadian institutionsDillon Consulting
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyTest validityPsychodynamicsScale (ratio)Variance (accounting)Reliability (semiconductor)PsychometricsOrientation (vector space)Psychoanalytic theoryClinical psychologySocial psychologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study supported evidence of reliability and validity of the Theoretical Orientation Profile Scale—Revised (TOPS—R) scores. The TOPS—R was designed to measure theoretical orientation among counselors and trainees. Factor analysis yielded a 6-factor solution accounting for 87.5% of the total variance in the scale. The 6 factors corresponded to 6 schools of psychotherapy (i.e., psychoanalytic/psychodynamic, humanistic/existential, cognitive-behavioral, family systems, feminist, and multicultural).

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.846
Threshold uncertainty score0.586

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.278 · 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