MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W170016216 · doi:10.1177/070674370104600111

Regression toward the Mean: Its Etiology, Diagnosis, and Treatment

2001· article· en· W170016216 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement Theory and Practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegression toward the meanEtiologyRegressionRegression analysisPsychologyPopulationLinear regressionAffect (linguistics)PhenomenonIntervention (counseling)Clinical psychologyMedicineStatisticsPsychiatryPsychotherapistMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the phenomenon of "regression toward the mean." The primary effect of this is to affect scores on retesting so that they are closer to the population mean. Thus, people who are selected for inclusion in a study because their scores on some measure are above (or below) some criterion have values on retesting that are less extreme. This may make it appear that the study participants have improved; this will occur even in the absence of an effective intervention. We explore the reasons for regression toward the mean and how it can be detected and discuss some methods that may minimize its effects.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.801
Threshold uncertainty score0.938

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.222 · 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