MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2530539846 · doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.82

Data from a pre-publication independent replication initiative examining ten moral judgement effects

2016· article· en· W2530539846 on OpenAlexaff
Warren Tierney, Martin Schweinsberg, Jennifer Jordan, Deanna M. Kennedy, Israr Qureshi, S. Amy Sommer, Nico Thornley, Nikhil Madan, Michelangelo Vianello, Eli Awtrey, Luke Zhu, Daniel Diermeier, Justin E. Heinze, Malavika Srinivasan, David Tannenbaum, Eliza Bivolaru, Jason Dana, Clintin P. Davis‐Stober, Christilene du Plessis, Quentin F. Gronau, Andrew Hafenbrack, Eko Yi Liao, Alexander Ly, Maarten Marsman, Toshio Murase, Michael Schaerer, Christina M. Tworek, Eric‐Jan Wagenmakers, Tabitha Anderson, Christopher W. Bauman, Wendy L. Bedwell, Victoria L. Brescoll, Andrew Canavan, Jesse Chandler, Erik W. Cheries, Sapna Cheryan, Felix Cheung, Andrei Cimpian, Mark A. Clark, Diana Cordon, Fiery Cushman, Peter H. Ditto, Alice Amell, Sarah E. Frick, Monica Gamez-Djokic, Rebecca Hofstein Grady, Jesse Graham, Jun Gu, Adam Hahn, Brittany E. Hanson, Nicole Hartwich, Kristie Hein, Yoel Inbar, Lily J. Jiang, Tehlyr Kellogg, Nicole Legate, Timo P. Luoma, Heidi Maibeucher, Peter Meindl, Jennifer Miles, Alexandra Mislin, Daniel C. Molden, Matt Motyl, George Newman, Hoai Huong Ngo, Harvey Packham, P. Scott Ramsay, Jennifer L. Ray, Aaron M. Sackett, Anne-Laure Sellier, Tatiana Sokolova, Walter J. Sowden, Daniel Storage, Xiaomin Sun, Jay J. Van Bavel, Anthony N. Washburn, Cong Wei, Erik Wetter, Carlos T. Wilson, Sophie-Charlotte Darroux, Eric Luis Uhlmann

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Data · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReplication (statistics)JudgementPsychologyPolitical scienceBiologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present the data from a crowdsourced project seeking to replicate findings in independent laboratories before (rather than after) they are published. In this Pre-Publication Independent Replication (PPIR) initiative, 25 research groups attempted to replicate 10 moral judgment effects from a single laboratory's research pipeline of unpublished findings. The 10 effects were investigated using online/lab surveys containing psychological manipulations (vignettes) followed by questionnaires. Results revealed a mix of reliable, unreliable, and culturally moderated findings. Unlike any previous replication project, this dataset includes the data from not only the replications but also from the original studies, creating a unique corpus that researchers can use to better understand reproducibility and irreproducibility in science.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.590
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.406
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.042 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific DataSame topicPsychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentFrench-language works237,207