MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2739364617 · doi:10.1057/978-1-137-38523-9_9

Construct Validation: View from the “Trenches”

2017· book-chapter· en· W2739364617 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.

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · 2017
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstruct (python library)Construct validityScholarshipPsychologyData scienceComputer scienceManagement sciencePolitical scienceEngineeringPsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A review is given of the major construct validation frameworks falling roughly within three historic periods: mid-1950s; late 1950s to mid-1980s; and 1990s to current. The chapter then shifts in focus from scholarship prescribing how to validate constructs to a description of construct validation research as actually lived and practiced. The major findings from a fairly recent body of empirical research dedicated to the examination of psychometric reporting and validation practices are summarized in light of the prescriptions implied by the major validation frameworks. The chapter aims to get to the “ground floor” of CVT by examining the practices of researchers engaged in construct validation research so that recommendations can be appropriately targeted to those researchers.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.358
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.045 · 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