MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024753021 · doi:10.1159/000272818

Behavior Analysis and Developmental Psychology

2009· article· en· W2024753021 on OpenAlexaff
Edward K. Morris, Daniel E. Hursh, Andrew S. Winston, Donna M. Gelfand, Donald P. Hartmann, Hayne W. Reese, Donald M. Baer

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Development · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral and Psychological Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetatheoryNature versus nurturePsychologyProsocial behaviorEpistemologyFunction (biology)Cognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologyCognitive scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Relationships between the fields of behavior analysis and developmental psychology are examined. First, the influence of behavior-analytic research within developmental psychology is surveyed. In the next two sections, integrations of the two approaches are examined with respect to metatheory and methodology. The section on metatheory examines the behavior-analytic approach to nature and nurture, structure and function, traits and situations, and organismic and mechanistic world views. The section on methodology examines the usefulness of combining the approaches for studying developmental phenomena, specifically prosocial behavior. Two commentaries on these issues conclude the discussion by pointing out that rigorous experimentation is a common element of the two fields, and that differences in metatheoretical assumptions, research strategies, and research questions are worth consideration by both perspectives.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.020
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.227
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations14
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman DevelopmentSame topicBehavioral and Psychological StudiesFrench-language works237,207