MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989941651 · doi:10.1080/14999013.2011.629716

When “Good Enough” Is Just Not Good Enough: Response to Holden and Marjanovic

2011· article· en· W1989941651 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

VenueInternational Journal of Forensic Mental Health · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTest (biology)PsychologyConstruct (python library)Mental healthApplied psychologyPsychotherapistComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we respond to a commentary by Holden and Marjanovic (this issue) on Slaney, Storey, and Barnes’ article “‘Is My Test Valid?’: Guidelines for the Practicing Psychologist for Evaluating the Psychometric Properties of Measures” (this issue). Specifically, we reply to Holden and Marjanovic's claims that our guidelines: endorse a “construct approach” to test evaluation and development, rely too heavily on modern test theoretic methods and as such are too mathematically and technically intractable to be practically useful, and may present too unrealistic a challenge to be used in test development and the evaluation of well-established measures. Finally, we attempt to clarify the major themes that the guidelines described in Slaney, Storey, and Barnes were intended to convey.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.820
Threshold uncertainty score0.868

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.472
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.016 · 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