MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123417791 · doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsu099

Developing and Modifying Behavioral Coding Schemes in Pediatric Psychology: A Practical Guide

2014· article· en· W2123417791 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Psychology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral and Psychological Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNova Scotia Health Research FoundationUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsCoding (social sciences)Pediatric psychologyComputer scienceObservational studyPsychologyData scienceMedicineClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To provide a concise and practical guide to the development, modification, and use of behavioral coding schemes for observational data in pediatric psychology. METHODS: This article provides a review of relevant literature and experience in developing and refining behavioral coding schemes. RESULTS: A step-by-step guide to developing and/or modifying behavioral coding schemes is provided. Major steps include refining a research question, developing or refining the coding manual, piloting and refining the coding manual, and implementing the coding scheme. Major tasks within each step are discussed, and pediatric psychology examples are provided throughout. CONCLUSIONS: Behavioral coding can be a complex and time-intensive process, but the approach is invaluable in allowing researchers to address clinically relevant research questions in ways that would not otherwise be possible.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.324
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.154 · 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