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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multilevel modeling has been considered a promising statistical tool in the field of the experimental analysis of behavior and may serve as a convenient statistical analysis for matching behavior because it structures data in groups (or levels) to account simultaneously for the within-subject and between-subject variances. Heretofore, researchers have sometimes pooled data erroneously from different subjects in a single analysis by using average ratios, average response and reinforcer rates, aggregation of subjects, etc. Unfortunately, this leads to loss of information and biased estimations, which can severely undermine generalization of the results. Instead, a multilevel approach is advocated to combine several subjects' matching behavior. A reanalysis of previous data on matching behavior is provided to illustrate the method and point out its advantages. It illustrates that multilevel regression leads to better estimations, is more convenient, and offers more behavioral information. We hope this paper will encourage the use of multilevel modeling in the statistical practices of behavior analysts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it