MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886602349 · doi:10.1177/2515245918773743

Reproducible Tables in Psychology Using the apaTables Package

2018· article· en· W2886602349 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

VenueAdvances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisk formattingReplication (statistics)Analysis of varianceVariance (accounting)Psychological researchRepeated measures designPsychologyTable (database)Mixed-design analysis of varianceStatisticsComputer scienceNatural language processingInformation retrievalDatabaseMathematicsSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Growing awareness of how susceptible research is to errors, coupled with well-documented replication failures, has caused psychological researchers to move toward open science and reproducible research. In this Tutorial, to facilitate reproducible psychological research, we present a tool that creates reproducible tables that follow the American Psychological Association’s (APA’s) style. Our tool, apaTables, automates the creation of APA-style tables for commonly used statistics and analyses in psychological research: correlations, multiple regressions (with and without blocks), standardized mean differences, N-way independent-groups analyses of variance (ANOVAs), within-subjects ANOVAs, and mixed-design ANOVAs. All tables are saved as Microsoft Word documents, so they can be readily incorporated into manuscripts without manual formatting or transcription of values.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.831
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.313
GPT teacher head0.703
Teacher spread0.390 · 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