MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2781178498 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/ezcuj

Reproducibility Project: Psychology

2012· article· en· W2781178498 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReproducibilityPsychologyApplied psychologySocial psychologyComputer scienceMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reproducibility is a defining feature of science, but the extent to which it characterizes current research is unknown. We conducted replications of 100 experimental and correlational studies published in three psychology journals using high-powered designs and original materials when available.

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)0.335
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.712
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Open science
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reproducibility · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.820

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3350.712
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.007
Bibliometrics0.0120.015
Science and technology studies0.0070.013
Scholarly communication0.0150.006
Open science0.0050.011
Research integrity0.0080.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0770.024

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 head0.548
GPT teacher head0.517
Teacher spread0.031 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
DomainReproducibility
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

Citations14
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints)Same topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207