Replication Research: A Purposeful Occupation Worth Repeating
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is common for researchers to request at the end of their published studies, the urgency for further studies to be completed. Unfortunately there are very few published studies that have replicated original studies. The purpose of this article is to provide a framework for understanding issues related to replication research that will assist occupational therapy researchers, clinicians, managers, students and educators to realize the importance of implementing and publishing replication research to establish evidence-based practice. Various areas related to replication research are explored. In addition, a computerized literature search using the search term 'replication' was completed. Only four articles published between 1982-1998 were discovered. This article concludes with recommendations to ensure replication studies are included in the occupational therapy literature and utilized in clinical practice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.557 | 0.835 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".