MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1836469493 · doi:10.1002/0470013192.bsa276

History of Correlational Measurement

2005· other· en· W1836469493 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

VenueEncyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science · 2005
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeredityGalton's problemPearson product-moment correlation coefficientEugenicsContext (archaeology)StatisticsCorrelationData collectionEpistemologyPsychologyMathematicsGenealogySocial scienceSocial psychologySociologyHistoryPhilosophyLawBiologyPolitical scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The beginnings of attempts to index the relationship between two or more variables began in the nineteenth century. A number of mathematicians produced theoretical underpinnings that lead to the concept of correlation, but none appreciated the practical applications of the method. Galton looked at correlation in the context of heredity with the aim of providing objective mathematical descriptions that would bolster his belief in, and demonstrate the truth of the social philosophy of planned heredity that he named eugenics . Pearson, a mathematician and also a eugenist, arrived at the best formula for the coefficient of correlation and it was named after him. Later, the methods of partial and multiple correlation followed. The methods of factor analysis were introduced and techniques for handling relationships among ordinal and nominal data added to the growing collection of statistical methods in the behavioral and biological sciences.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.000

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.312 · 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