MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985156672 · doi:10.1002/jclp.20184

Meehl on metatheory

2005· article· en· W1985156672 on OpenAlexaff
Wm. W. Rozeboom

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Psychology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophy and History of Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetatheoryConstructiveEpistemologyPhilosophy of sciencePsychologyHistory and philosophy of scienceNull hypothesisHistory of psychologyPhilosophyMathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article proffers a critical survey of Paul E. Meehl's thoughts on the philosophy of science, as well as constructive criticisms of his views on corroboration of scientific theories. Using examples from clinical psychology and allied domains, six major topics are addressed: (a) the nature of theoretical constructs, (b) statistical diagnosis of clinical categories, (c) detection of hypothesized taxa, (d) null-hypothesis significance testing, (e) complexified hypothesis testing, and (f) cliometric theory appraisal. Through numerous examples, it is shown that Paul Meehl had a superb ability to recognize, articulate, and clarify hidden complexities, and other underappreciated obscurities in important working concepts.

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 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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.835
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.461
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.047 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations12
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical PsychologySame topicPhilosophy and History of ScienceFrench-language works237,207