MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084126787 · doi:10.1080/00273171.2011.606748

Comparison of Methods for Collecting and Modeling Dissimilarity Data: Applications to Complex Sound Stimuli

2011· article· en· W2084126787 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMultivariate Behavioral Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMultisensory perception and integration
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSortingReliability (semiconductor)Computer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Hierarchical database modelData miningArtificial intelligenceStatisticsMathematicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sorting procedures are frequently adopted as an alternative to dissimilarity ratings to measure the dissimilarity of large sets of stimuli in a comparatively short time. However, systematic empirical research on the consequences of this experiment-design choice is lacking. We carried out a behavioral experiment to assess the extent to which sorting procedures compare to dissimilarity ratings in terms of efficiency, reliability, and accuracy, and the extent to which data from different data-collection methods are redundant and are better fit by different distance models. Participants estimated the dissimilarity of either semantically charged environmental sounds or semantically neutral synthetic sounds. We considered free and hierarchical sorting and derived indications concerning the properties of constrained and truncated hierarchical sorting methods from hierarchical sorting data. Results show that the higher efficiency of sorting methods comes at a considerable cost in terms of data reliability and accuracy. This loss appears to be minimized with truncated hierarchical sorting methods that start from a relatively low number of groups of stimuli. Finally, variations in data-collection method differentially affect the fit of various distance models at the group-average and individual levels. On the basis of these results, we suggest adopting sorting as an alternative to dissimilarity-rating methods only when strictly necessary. We also suggest analyzing the raw behavioral dissimilarities, and avoiding modeling them with one single distance model.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gptMetaresearch
Domain: Methods · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentalhigh
grokno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
opusMetaresearch
Domain: Methods · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentallow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.840
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.951
GPT teacher head0.740
Teacher spread0.211 · 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