MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132264666 · doi:10.1037//1040-3590.13.1.86

Exporting analogue behavioral observation from research to clinical practice: Useful or cost-defective?

2001· review· en· W2132264666 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

VenuePsychological Assessment · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral and Psychological Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsABO blood group systemPsychologyClinical PracticeBridging (networking)MedicineComputer scienceFamily medicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The special section on analogue behavioral observation (ABO) provided an in-depth review of various ABO assessment procedures. Despite their availability, however, these procedures are rarely used in clinical practice. This may result in part from the traditions on which most ABO assessments are based, from distinctions between clinical and research assessment environments, and from the need for more information about the cost-effectiveness of ABO strategies for meeting specific needs of clinicians in applied settings. Suggestions for bridging the research-clinical gap involve investigating more thoroughly when ABO does and does not provide useful information for various purposes in applied settings and increasing accessibility and cost-effectiveness of ABO procedures for practitioners.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.005

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 head0.922
GPT teacher head0.715
Teacher spread0.206 · 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