MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903888575 · doi:10.7202/1054068ar

Adieu coefficient alpha de Cronbach! J’ai trouvé plus fidèle que toi…

2018· article· fr· W2903888575 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Sébastien Béland, Denis Cousineau

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue de psychoéducation · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive and psychological constructs research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversité de MontréalCégep Marie-Victorin
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesCronbach's alphaPhysicsPhilosophyMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

De nombreux chercheurs en psychométrie soutiennent que le coefficient alpha de Cronbach (1951) n’est pas une mesure adéquate de la fidélité (reliability) d’un test. C’est dans l’optique d’améliorer les pratiques d’analyse de données que ce court article va présenter les fondements théoriques de la fidélité, synthétiser les principales limites de l’alpha en plus de présenter de façon concise deux alternatives très prometteuses: le great lower bound et l’omega. Des logiciels gratuits et en téléchargement libre sont mentionnés pour obtenir un estimé de ces coefficients.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.116
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.116
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.005

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.364 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue de psychoéducationSame topicCognitive and psychological constructs researchFrench-language works237,207