Establishing Reliability When Multiple Examiners Evaluate a Single Case-Part II: Applications to Symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
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
In an earlier article, the authors assessed the clinical significance of each of 19 Clinician Administered PTSD Scale items and composite scores (CAPS-1) [1] when 12 clinicians evaluated a Vietnam era veteran. A second patient was also evaluated by the same 12 clinicians and used for cross-validation purposes [2]. The objectives of this follow-up research are: (1) to describe and apply novel bio-statistical methods for establishing the statistical significance of these reliability estimates when the same 12 examiners evaluated each of the two Vietnam era patients. This approach is also utilized within the broader contexts of the ideographic and nomothetic conceptualizations to science, and the interplay between statistical and clinical or practical significance; (2) to detail the steps for applying the new methodology; and (3) to investigate whether the quality of the symptoms (frequency, intensity); item content; or specific clinician affect the levels of rater reliability. The more typical (nomothetic) reliability research design focuses on group averages and broader principles related to biomedical issues, rather than the focus on the individual case (ideographic approach). Both research designs (ideographic and nomothetic) have been incorporated in this follow-up research endeavor.
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 | 0.011 | 0.160 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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