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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Rorschach inkblot test is the most commonly used projective measure in both clinical and forensic settings, and Exner's Comprehensive System (CS) is the most commonly used approach to Rorschach administration and scoring. However, recent studies of both adults and children have cast doubt on the representativeness of the CS norms. The analyses by Wood, Nezworski, Garb, and Lilienfeld provide compelling evidence that the CS adult norms are seriously flawed and are likely to result in frequent false positive identifications of psychopathology. We discuss the crucial need for appropriate norms in clinical assessment and examine the quality of the CS norms vis-a-vis those of other commonly used tests. We conclude that the concerns raised about the CS adult norms are sufficient to require the development of new norms for the CS. In the meantime, given the doubt that has been cast on the CS norms, it is crucial that the developers of the CS immediately move to provide ethically informed, scientifically based guidance to Rorschach users on how best to interpret adult Rorschach protocols.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it