MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2892346574 · doi:10.1111/bjso.12273

Rethinking current models in social psychology: A Bayesian framework to understand dramatic social change

2018· article· en· W2892346574 on OpenAlexaff
Roxane de la Sablonnière, Jean‐Marc Lina, Diana Cárdenas

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Social Psychology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEvent (particle physics)Social psychologyPsychologySocial changeNormativeProbabilistic logicBayesian probabilityPaceSociologyPositive economicsEpistemologyPolitical scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dramatic social change (DSC) is the new normal, affecting millions of people around the world. However, not all events plunge societies into DSC. According to de la Sablonnière (2017, Front. Psychol., 8, 1), events that have a rapid pace of change, that rupture an entire group's social and normative structures, and that threaten the group's cultural identity will result in DSC. This perspective provokes important unanswered questions: What is the chance that a DSC will occur if an event takes place? And, when will other societal states arise from such events? Addressing these questions is pivotal for a genuine psychology of social change to emerge. The goal of this article was to describe a methodology that attempts to answer these questions via a probabilistic decision tree within a Bayesian framework. According to our analysis, a DSC should occur 6.25% of the time that an event takes place in a stable society (68.75% of the time for incremental social change, 12.5% for inertia, and 12.5% for stability). The Bayesian probabilistic decision tree could be applied to specific event and thus serve as a guide for a programmatic study of social change and ultimately inform policymakers who need to plan and prepare for events that lead to DSC.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.468
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.271
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.199 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Social PsychologySame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207