Tools and Techniques for Quantitative and Predictive Cognitive Science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A methodology is described for developing cognitive science theories which produce numerical predictions.This is done by adopting methodology from mathematical models in physics, and adapting it for use with the more complex computational models.Bootstrap confidence intervals and equivalence testing are introduced, and parameter fitting is shown to be an intermediate step before prediction.To ensure replication and exploration by other researchers, publication of the source code for the model, experimental situation, and data analysis is required.To assist in this process, we have developed a freely available tool suite, covering creation of models, running parallel simulations, parameter exploration, data analysis, and Internet-based access to all data.
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 | 0.014 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.009 |
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".