MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W261503754 · doi:10.20982/tqmp.02.1.p020

Formatting data files for repeated-measures analyses in SPSS: Using the Aggregate and Restructure procedures

2006· article· en· W261503754 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueTutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicData Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisk formattingAggregate (composite)Computer scienceRestructuringDatabaseOperating systemBusinessMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this tutorial, we demonstrate how to use the Aggregate and Restructure procedures available in SPSS (versions 11 and up) to prepare data files for repeated-measures analyses. In the first two sections of the tutorial, we briefly describe the Aggregate and Restructure procedures. In the final section, we present an example in which the data from a fictional lexical decision task are prepared for analysis using a mixed-design ANOVA. The tutorial demonstrates that the presented method is the most efficient way to prepare data for repeated-measures analyses in SPSS.

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.

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)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.334
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.740
GPT teacher head0.690
Teacher spread0.050 · 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