MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884151395 · doi:10.1017/s0140525x18000833

The replicability revolution

2018· letter· en· W2884151395 on OpenAlexaff
Ulrich Schimmack

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral and Brain Sciences · 2018
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReplication (statistics)PsychologyCognitive psychologyBiologyVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Psychology is in the middle of a replicability revolution. High-profile replication studies have produced a large number of replication failures. The main reason why replication studies in psychology often fail is that original studies were selected for significance. If all studies were reported, original studies would fail to produce significant results as often as replication studies. Replications would be less contentious if original results were not selected for significance.

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)0.226
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.517
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reproducibility · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score0.955

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2260.517
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.052
Scholarly communication0.0090.024
Open science0.0060.009
Research integrity0.0260.065
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.008

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 head0.245
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainReproducibility
GenreCommentary

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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral and Brain SciencesSame topicMental Health Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207