Response to Comment on “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science”
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- Metaresearch, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
- Consensus categories
- Metaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Not applicableConsensus signal: Not applicable
- Genre
- Candidate signal: CommentaryConsensus signal: Commentary
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.218
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 1.000
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.735 | 0.517 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.018 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
Abstract
Gilbert et al. conclude that evidence from the Open Science Collaboration's Reproducibility Project: Psychology indicates high reproducibility, given the study methodology. Their very optimistic assessment is limited by statistical misconceptions and by causal inferences from selectively interpreted, correlational data. Using the Reproducibility Project: Psychology data, both optimistic and pessimistic conclusions about reproducibility are possible, and neither are yet warranted.
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.
The record
- Venue
- Science
- Topic
- Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Field
- Decision Sciences
- Canadian institutions
- Queen's UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
- Funders
- Laura and John Arnold FoundationJohn Templeton Foundation
- Keywords
- ReproducibilityPessimismPsychological sciencePsychologyPsychological researchOpen scienceStatisticsSocial psychologyMathematicsEpistemologyPhilosophy
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes