MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167385146

O Método Q na avaliação psicológica: utilizando a família como ilustração

2002· article· en· W2167385146 on OpenAlexaff
Marc Bigras, Maria Auxiliadora Dessen

Bibliographic record

VenueDialnet (Universidad de la Rioja) · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive and psychological constructs research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPsychologyPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The method Q is not well known among researchers and therapists who are interested in the field of child and family psychology, despite the effectiveness of the instruments based on it, particularly those related to the marital and parental relationships. The quality of data which come from a method depends especially on its appropriateness to the questions we ask for answers and on our ability to select methodological strategies in a correct way. On the other hand, the last one depends mainly on the updated knowledge that we have from different methods and strategies. Therefore, the aim of this article is to describe the method Q in comparison to the method R, highlighting the Q-Sorts instruments. To illustrate its strengths and weaknesses we present data from the area of family psychology.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.614
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0680.005

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDialnet (Universidad de la Rioja)Same topicCognitive and psychological constructs researchFrench-language works237,207