MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067245140 · doi:10.1037/0894-4105.17.2.321

Question hard, answer simply: A comment on Storms et al. (2003).

2003· letter· en· W2067245140 on OpenAlexaff
Yoshio Takane

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuropsychology · 2003
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySimilarity (geometry)DementiaStormCognitive psychologyFocus (optics)Social psychologyMedicineDiseaseArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It seems clear that, for whatever reasons, the dementia of the Alzheimer type patient group (as well as other patient groups) exhibits behavior that is different from the normal control group. G. Storms, T. Dirikx, J. Saerens, S. Verstraeten, and P. P. De Deyn (2003) rightfully argue that the observed behavior (similarity judgments) does not tell us the source (cause) of the differences between the 2 groups. Rather, the focus of the study should be placed more on finding the ways the 2 groups are different. They also point out various methodological problems in some of the previous attempts to characterize the nature of the differences. Further methodological issues in G. Storms et al.'s study are examined.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.330 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuropsychologySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207