MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2552520122 · doi:10.1037/gpr0000087

Frightened by an Old Scarecrow: The Remarkable Resilience of Demand Characteristics

2016· article· en· W2552520122 on OpenAlexaff
Donald Sharpe, William J. Whelton

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of General Psychology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinterpretationVariety (cybernetics)Demand characteristicsPsychologyOn demandPositive economicsEconomicsSociologySocial psychologyAestheticsComputer sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

More than 50 years ago, the idea of demand characteristics was introduced by Martin Orne in a widely cited American Psychologist article. Through the 1960s and the mid-1970s, numerous studies were conducted investigating the role of demand characteristics in a variety of research areas. Demand characteristics faded from researchers’ attention in the late 1970s, relegated to brief descriptions in research methods textbooks. The present article traces the origins of and battles fought over demand characteristics during its heyday. Evidence is provided that suggests demand characteristics experienced a rebirth in the 1980s and it remains a widely referenced idea up to today. Demand characteristics reflect perennial concerns about the difficulties of and limitations to doing research with humans, concerns that often surface in the periodic crises that confront psychology. The types of problems that animated the crisis of confidence associated with demand characteristics in the 1970s form one dimension of the current replication crisis. Reinterpretation of this current replication crisis and a new direction for experimental research with human subjects are derived from this review of demand characteristics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.028
Scholarly communication0.0080.013
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.399 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
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

Citations47
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of General PsychologySame topicMental Health Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207