MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1530413246 · doi:10.1002/bin.328

Detecting Changes in Simulated Events Using Partial‐Interval Recording and Momentary Time Sampling III: Evaluating Sensitivity as a Function of Session Length

2011· article· en· W1530413246 on OpenAlexaff
Sherise L. Devine, John T. Rapp, Jennifer R. Testa, Marissa L. Henrickson, Gabriel Schnerch

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Interventions · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral and Psychological Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersSt. Cloud State University
KeywordsDuration (music)Interval (graph theory)False positive paradoxSampling (signal processing)StatisticsSession (web analytics)Range (aeronautics)Set (abstract data type)Sampling intervalPsychologyMathematicsComputer scienceAcousticsDetectorEngineeringTelecommunicationsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a series of two studies, we graphed simulated data representing continuous duration recording and continuous frequency recording into ABAB reversal designs depicting small, moderate, and large behavior changes during 10‐min, 30‐min, and 60‐min sessions. Data sets were re‐scored using partial‐interval recording and momentary time sampling with interval sizes set at 10 s, 20 s, 30 s, 1 min, and 2 min. In study 1, we visually inspected converted data for experimental control and compared the conclusion with those from the respective continuous duration recording or continuous frequency recording data to test for false negatives. In study 2, we evaluated the extent to which interval methods that were sensitive to changes in study 1 produced false positives. In part, the results show that momentary time sampling with interval sizes up to 30 s detected a wide range of changes in duration events and frequency events during lengthier observation periods. The practical implications of the findings are briefly discussed. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.085
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.085
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.621
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.133 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations51
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral InterventionsSame topicBehavioral and Psychological StudiesFrench-language works237,207