MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019551562 · doi:10.1080/00207590344000033

Advanced Research and Training Seminars (ARTS) Report on ARTS 2002

2003· article· en· W2019551562 on OpenAlexaff
John G. Adair

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Psychology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational and Psychological Assessments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersInstitute of Education, University of London
KeywordsThe artsPsychologyAssociation (psychology)Medical educationInternational psychologyPedagogyPolitical scienceSchool psychologyPsychotherapistMedicineAsian psychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reports on the Advanced Research and Training Seminars (ARTS) program that was held in Singapore during July, 2002. The seminars were sponsored jointly by the three international psychology associations—the International Union of Psychological Science (IUPsyS), the International Association of Applied Psychology (IAAP), and the International Association for Cross‐Cultural Psychology (IACCP). ARTS is an educational program for psychologists from low‐income (developing and in‐transition) countries. The seminars are held in proximity of the international congresses each even‐numbered year to enable participants to attend one or more congresses in addition to receiving specialized instruction. Also, it is expected that the educational benefits to participants will extend to their students and colleagues with whom they interact on return to their home countries.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.173
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1730.086

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 head0.264
GPT teacher head0.567
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of PsychologySame topicEducational and Psychological AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207