MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078231495 · doi:10.1002/jclp.20522

The problematic importance of hypotheses

2008· article· en· W2078231495 on OpenAlexaff
Wm. W. Rozeboom

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Psychology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophy and History of Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelevance (law)PsychologyEpistemologyCognitive psychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contrary to what seems to have become established dogma in the behavioral sciences, the confirmational relevance of some data possibility D to a conjecture H should be indifferent to which of these two prospects we think of first. In particular, if ascertaining whether D is true would be a hypothetico-deductive test of hypothesis H were D's implication by H declared at outset, the confirmational relevance of D to H is not diminished by learning D before becoming aware that H implies it.

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)0.106
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.273
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.559

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1060.273
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.055
Scholarly communication0.0080.020
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0100.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.495
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.041 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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

Citations13
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical PsychologySame topicPhilosophy and History of ScienceFrench-language works237,207