Taking the middle ground, where the path is most clear: Reply to Smith (2013) and Denollet (2013).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We appreciate the thoughtful comments on Marin and Miller (2013). Both commentaries questioned the validity of our conclusions about interpersonal sensitivity (IS) and health, with Smith (2013) arguing that we overstated the conclusions and Denollet (2013) arguing that we did not take them far enough. Here we offer a middle-ground approach to interpreting the IS-health literature. We discuss our rationale for including introversion as an IS construct, and we point readers to high-quality evidence that specifically rules out some of the competing explanations raised by Smith (2013). Finally, we argue that additional work in this area is needed before specific hypotheses about biological mechanisms and the roles of age and disease stage as possible moderators can be tested.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.061 | 0.072 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".