MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102349469 · doi:10.1080/00986280902739693

APA's Learning Objectives for Research Methods and Statistics in Practice: A Multimethod Analysis

2009· article· en· W2102349469 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

VenueTeaching of Psychology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral and Psychological Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSyllabusPsychologyDescriptive statisticsConcordanceStatistics educationHigher educationStatisticsMedical educationMathematics educationMathematicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research methods and statistics courses constitute a core undergraduate psychology requirement. We analyzed course syllabi and faculty self-reported coverage of both research methods and statistics course learning objectives to assess the concordance with APA's learning objectives (American Psychological Association, 2007). We obtained a sample of 64 research methods and 56 statistics syllabi (return rates: 16%, 14%) from 400 randomly selected psychology departments in colleges and universities in the United States. Course syllabi generally contained appropriate research methods and statistics content. However, certain APA learning objectives consistently were absent from course syllabi, and we found discrepancies between listed objectives and faculty self-reports of topics covered.

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.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.420
GPT teacher head0.657
Teacher spread0.238 · 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