V. DESIGN-BASED APPROACHES FOR IMPROVING MEASUREMENT IN DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study of change and variation within individuals, and the relative comparison of changes across individuals, relies on the assumption that observed measurements reflect true change in the construct being measured. Measurement properties that change over time, contexts, or people pose a fundamental threat to validity and lead to ambiguous conclusions about change and variation. We highlight such measurement issues from a within-person perspective and discuss the merits of measurement-intensive research designs for improving precision of both within-person and between-person analysis. In general, intensive measurement designs, potentially embedded within long-term longitudinal studies, provide developmental researchers an opportunity to more optimally capture within-person change and variation as well as provide a basis to understand changes in dynamic processes and determinants of these changes over time.
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 | 0.286 | 0.427 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".